12-020030320-Affidavit-08 Affidavit M47 of 2003

-1-
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 leave to proceed for Orders Nisi is made in the national interest of Australia, however, it is the applicants understanding that the high Court of Australia lacks competence or the will to deal with matters of extreme nature in an appropriate manner as to avoid any undue delay. 3. The applicant, find that at times having to wait for a week to have a decision, not because it required a week to make a decision, but merely as it appears to the applicant engineered delays to provide a decision. This, is a very serious matter for any Court of law to do, where the lives of so many and indeed the future of Australia is at steak. It appears to the applicant that the high Court of Australia has shown to be bias against the applicant, and the accumulation of the delays over a period of weeks has significantly caused the Applicant to question the honourable conduct of the high Court of Australia. As such, the case is much an indictment against the high Court of Australia to have needlessly prevented matters placed before this Court to be considered and decided upon its MERITS. The Applicant has the view that the high Court of Australia by this has indicated, albeit perhaps unintentionally, that the rule of law no longer it the primary objective and it sanctions, by its inactions, those TAKING THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. Whatever the outcome of the WAR against Iraq, forever will it be on the records that the High Court of Australia denied matters placed before this Court to be heard upon its MERITS, and in fact engineered or could be seen to have engineered undue delays in handing down decisions, as to thereby frustrate litigation and perhaps by it avoid the Applicant to succeed in his Applications. 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
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-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
-2-
Phone number: 03 9457 70209
5. That by way of 20 March 2003 faxed letter the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia advised that Hayne J directed that Leave to Apply was required to proceed with the said Application. 6. That for an application for Leave, the Applicant doesnt need to set out his entire case, merely having to show to the Court that the applicant has a MERIT in the case, irrespective if at the end of litigation the applicant might be successful or not. 7. That the Applicant takes the view that the High Court of Australia is bias against the Applicant and in that regard likely will unduly deny any relief sought by the Applicant, upon what ever excuse, regardless being legally valid and/or applicable or not. 8. The Applicant is seeking the relief as stated in the DRAFT ORDERS NISI, not as a way to seek to interfere with the rights of a 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 to place 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 law and/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. 9. That in relation to the United Nations the Applicant relies upon the following. March 11, 2003. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan took legal advice before warning today that US military action against Iraq without a Security Council mandate would flout international law, a UN official said. This also then includes any action by Australia! The relevant articles of the UN Charter are the following: Article 2 (iv) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Article 24 (i) In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

-3-
Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. 10. That the applicant has the understanding that a condition of the membership to the United Nations is that not the members upon their own accord decide what is or is not to be done but rather that it accepted that the Security Council does so, other then if a member is under direct attack. As such, the Security Council only can authorise enforcement of any resolution. Further, that Resolution 678 and 687 have been superseded by resolution 1441, and therefore 678 and 687 are subject to 1441, and only the Security Council has the legal position to determine if there was a failure or not by Iraq to comply with resolution 1441 and what, if any action is authorised if there was any failure to comply, and as such Australia has no legal position to argue if it can upon its own or combined with other nations act, it simply can only execute any military force provided this is as a United Nations special sanctions to enforce resolution 1441. Further, where there is a unilateral action to go to WAR, then this is a WAR condition that within the framework of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is an Act of WAR that can only be declared by the Queen, for this the Governor-General. Neither does it matter if the united nations sanctions any WAR against a nation as still the Australian troops could not be deployed unless there has been a DECLARATION OF WAR, by the Queens representative, the GovernorGeneral. Any treaty that would be beyond the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution would be ULTRA VIRES for so far it exceeds this. As such, any Act of WAR, regardless if authorised by the Security Council, would nevertheless be subjected to a DECLARATION OF WAR. Failing such DECLARATION OF WAR, there is no constitutional/legal powers for the Federal Executive to involve Australia and so its troops into any WAR. To allow otherwise would to circumvent the very constitutional restrictions the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898 implemented, without a referendum that is required otherwise to extend executive and/or legislative powers of the Commonwealth. It would make a mockery of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, as a Government of the day, seemingly with the blessing of the High Court of Australia, by its inaction, can run amok, plunge the country in a WAR, regardless of the constitutional/legal validity.

-4-
Any treaty within Section 51 (xxix) external affairs, remains within the ambit of legislative powers, peace, order and good government. And, only while such treaty is subject to a law of the Commonwealth. Without any law, there can be no treaty constitutionally entered into, this as the provisions of Section 51 are subject to to make laws, and not to make agreements without making a law. No matter what therefore the United Nations Charter may or may not provide, unless it is actually a part of law, it is not applicable, and neither then can the Commonwealth pursue enforcement of any resolution. Where the United Nations Charter actually is made part of Australian law, then any resolution is subject to any other law of Australia, to the constitutional limitations applicable.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth; The constitutional limitations are clearly drawn to; defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, meaning to be an attack upon any State, and and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth; meaning that the
armed forces are limited to be used to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth, not to enforce United Nation resolutions, unless such resolution is in fact part of Australian law. The moment the United Nations Charter is part of Australian Law, then by this, the federal executive (government) cannot operate contrary to such provisions. It means that the Government is bound to act within the provisions of the United Nations Charter. Subj:If invading Iraq amounts to mass murdering Iraqi civilians then sue PM to stop it Date:10/02/03 6:15:02 PM AUS Eastern Daylight Time From:Patrick_Byrt@fcl.fl.asn.au To:carmen.lawrence.mp@aph.gov.au CC:GHSchorelHlavka@aol.com Also, a former South Australian Supreme Court Justice, Elliott Johnston QC, wrote to the press on Thursday 23 January saying such a war would be illegal if pursued without UN Security Council authority. In effect he advised legal action could be initiated in Australia by Australians, under the law of the United Nations Charter Act 1945. Mr Elliott Johnston QC gave gratuitous advice that there is a case to be made in the Australian Courts for legal action to stop the Howard Liberal Government from breaching the domestic Australian legislation of the United Nations Charter Act of 1945, which makes war, without a UN Security Council decision, illegal. Here's Elliott Johnston's legal view run as the line: UN needed for legal Iraq attack

-5-
"In 1945, the federal parliament passed the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945, which, by section 3, approved the charter, the terms of which are set out in the schedule to the Act. The charter was thereby made part of the law of Australia. By article 25 of the charter, the members of the UN agree to carry out the decisions of the Security Council, which by article 39 is given the task of deciding what measures are to be taken "to maintain or restore international peace and security". There is one (and only one) exception to the obligation to comply decisions of the Security Council. Article 51 provides that any member of the UN has the right to defend itself against "armed attack". There is no suggestion that Iraq has attacked Australia or the US. In fact, the US has stated quite openly that there is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11. If the US attacks Iraq without the specific authority of the Security Council, it acts illegally, since it also has adopted the charter. If the Australian Government supports the US in those circumstances, it acts illegally and is open to legal action The obvious issue is also the statement; "In 1945, the federal parliament passed the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945, which, by section 3, approved the charter, the terms of which are set out in the schedule to the Act. An item set out in a schedule to an Act not necessarily has the same weight as the item being stated in the main body of the Act. As such, it may very well be that the United Nations Charter Act 1945, albeit having the United Nations Charter as a schedule, it still may not be an enforceable Act for so far as being the schedule only. This could be in both the case to pursue litigation and to pursue using armed forces! Hansard 1-3-1898 [start page 1683] Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires. Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was attacked. And Mr. GORDON.Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised. Under the clause, as I have amended it, it will not prevent the plea of ultra vires being raised where it is accompanied with the plea of a conflict of law. If there

-6-
is a state law and a Commonwealth law on the same subject, every citizen is entitled to know which be should obey. If he joins a plea of ultra vires with a plea of conflict of law, that ought to be heard. KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 24. It should be made clear that no question arises as to the power of Australia to enter into the Convention. The Governor-General, exercising the prerogative power of the Crown, can make treaties on subjects which are not within the legislative power of the Commonwealth. However, the treaties when made are not self-executing; they do not give rights to or impose duties on members of the Australian community unless their provisions are given effect by statute. The power of the Parliament to carry treaties into effect is not necessarily as wide as the executive power to make them. It ought to be clear that even so within the powers of $51(xxix) the Commonwealth can make legislation for treaties to be made, such treaties cannot be overriding the constitutional limitations, and as such, a treaty can only be enforced for so far such enforcement lies within the constitutional confinements. Where the United Nations Charter is a mere schedule of the United Nations Charter Act 1945, then this even further places in question the validity of enforcement, where it fails to be actually an Act of Parliament. Schedules do not need to be an Act of Parliament, and as such do not necessarily fall within the ambit of Section 51 to make laws and as such neither could be enforced, certainly not be enforced by using armed forces. In any event, even if it were to be held to fall within the ambit of Section 51 to make laws, then it would still be subjected to the constitutional requirement governing normal warfare, that being that only the Governor-General (for the Queen) can declare WAR or PEACE. It would also mean that any funding of the armed forces for a WAR in Iraq would be unconstitutional! And, a WAR tax would also be unconstitutional, as the framers made clear that the Commonwealth had only taxable legislative powers in regard of customs and direct taxation. Hansard 9-9-1897; The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution, where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think, ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes. Hansard 9-3-1898

-7-
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole of the Constitution. Hansard 10-3-1898 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister. Wherefore, we all came to the conclusion, as constitutional writers have long come to the conclusion, that the prerogative is given in trust for the people, and is, therefore, only exercised at the instance of a responsible Minister. I should like to know whether there would not be a revolution in England if the Queen chose to declare war or to make peace without the sanction or advice of a responsible Minister? What is essential applicable is that any Act of WAR, other then to the defence of a State under immediate attack, must be subject to a DECLARATION OF WAR by the Queen, so the Governor-General, and in principle only upon the advise of his responsible Minister. The Governor-General can refuse to make a DECLARATION OF WAR, as he is not bound to accept the advice given. Further, a PEACE DECLARATION can only be made by the Queen, so the Governor-General, and only is this done upon the advise of the responsible Minister, if such advise is accepted by the said Governor-General. It means that the prime minister of the day has no legal standing to declare war, force any troops to go to WAR, as the responsible Minister could only be the Minister of State appointed over the armed forces. The minister of State however cannot commend the armed forces without consent of the Governor-General being the Chief Commander of the Armed Forces. It means, that the Governor-General cannot allow constitutionally the armed forces to go to War upon the directions of the minister of State (minister of Defence) without a DECLARATION OF WAR. As such, in every way, any WAR involving Australian troops is unconstitutional/unlawful! The Prime Minister has no constitutional/legal position to commit any Australian troops to any WAR, only the Minister of Defence can make that decision upon the approval of the Governor-General by having made a DECLARATION OF WAR!
11. That the High Court of Australia, by its delays and refusals to allow matters to be heard upon their MERITS, has already by its own action undermined considerably

-8-
the ability of the Applicant to obtain the relief sought. This, as the applicant sought orders to withdraw Australian troops from any war zone and to prohibit the involvement of Australian troops in any WAR with Iraq, upon constitutional and other legal grounds, this obviously as such is now unattainable. However, troops can still be drawn out of the WAR zone. 12. The Applicant has since 20 November 2001 placed his appeal M114 of 2001 before this Court, and as such didnt wait until the last minute to file such an Appeal, contesting the validity of the purported 10 November 2001 federal election. Yet, even by now the High Court of Australia did absolutely nothing to expedite this Appeal! This, even so a lawyer for the Commonwealth admitted that this appeal has MERITS. As such, the applicant has the view that the High Court of Australia has engineered to prevent the hearing of the appeal within a reasonable period of time as to prevent the Applicant to succeed against the Commonwealth! This, the Applicant views, would be/is an act of TREASON. 13. The Applicant might not be a lawyer, but his material places beyond doubt issues before the Court that never before have been litigated appropriately before the Courts and those issues have been placed in question by past judgments. Where then the applicant has filed supportive material in support of his applications, then any, as the applicant views it, engineered delay tactics and other incomprehensible conduct to prevent matters to be heard upon their MERITS, must be deemed a gross and utter failure of the High Court of Australia to conduct itself as a Court of Law. 14. The Applicant views that the Rules of the Court are used in a way preventing any speedy and proper determination of an extreme urgent matter and must be amended to provide in extreme circumstances a party an opportunity to have matters considered upon their MERITS, before the event against which relief is sought eventuate. 15. That the Applicant filed on 18-2-2003 a DRAFT ORDER NISI supported by an about 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 back by mail. The direction being that an application needed to be made for leave. Such leave was subsequently refused by GUMMOW J on 5-3-2003. 16. The Applicant now seeks to place before this Court a drastically reduced Application, basically dealing with the election issues and orders to provide that in the meantime the purported government will only be acting as a CARE TAKING Government until proper elections have been held, and for this is prohibited to take any military action other then to respond to any direct attack upon any State/Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia. 17. The Applicant has from past experiences the understanding that if a particular Application has been refused to proceed, then one can file part of the same Application subsequently, as long as it does not use the specific issues the Court

-9-
pointed out to refuse for filing, and also in the case of a change of circumstances, such as having now an actual WAR condition, then the filing is appropriate. 18. Gummow J in his judgement of 5 March 2003 did not identify a single issue and neither addressed the MERITS of any issue that was sought to be litigated. As such, the Applicant was well entitled to lodge Applications where none of the issues he seeks to be litigated have been determined upon their MERITS. 19. The Applicant is a person who has no formal education in the English language and neither 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 has adapted with, and uses his expressions to his understanding, which may or may not be correct, or be correctly understood. 20. If in the end, the High Court of Australia were, so to say, not to engineer any application/appeal to be RAILROADED, find that the 10 November 2001 purported Federal election was null and void and so the purported election outcome, it would in the meantime actually have allowed an unconstitutional/unlawful Government to go to WAR! It is for this, that the applicant views that unlikely he can trust the High Court of Australia without bias to deal with the litigation, as its own credibility, so to say, is on the line. 21. That the then Care Taking prime minister Mr John Howard misled the GovernorGeneral (by this indirectly the Governor of each State), about the true applicable election timetable, by this causing also the issue of defective writs. 22. That despite the request by the Governor-Generals Department for the Proclamation for the Prorogue of the Parliament at 11.59 am on 8 October 2001 and the dissolution of the House of Representatives at 12 noon on 8 October 2001 to be published in a Special Gazette, the Commonwealth failed to actually publish on 8 October 2001 this Proclamation. It did not publish the Proclamation until Special Gazette s421 was actually published on 9 October 2001 in Canberra and thereafter, as late as 22 October 2001 in Tasmania. By this, causing all wits issued by the Governor-General to be defective, as at the time of issue the writs, there were no vacancies of any seats! 23. The Applicant sought to file an application in the High Court of Australia on 1 November 2001 for injunctions against the Commonwealth Electoral Commission, as to hold any purported federal election, upon the grounds that all writs were issued defective, and so were null and void. The defects to included that the writs failed to comply with the legislative and/or constitutional provided timetables. 24. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia, Melbourne office, on 1 November 2001 advised the Applicant that in view of Section 383 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the appropriate Court was the Federal Court of Australia.

- 10 -
25. 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. His Honour acknowledged that the Applicant did not seek to contest the election as it had not been held, but contested the validity of the writs. 26. On 7 November 2001 the matter was determined before Marshall J, that is that His Honour 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 jurisdiction and 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 an election being held. 27. The Applicant filed an appeal M114 of 2001 in the High Court of Australia both against the judgment to dismiss and the Orders of cost. This appeal is still outstanding. The Deputy Registrar has indicated on 11 February 2003 that in the next few weeks she will attend to this appeal. 28. Since having filed the Appeal, the Applicant sought from the various government Department 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 Gazette publications has not been provided since 21-12-2001 FOI Act request! However, the few documents that were provided (finally) proves that the proclamation dated 5 October 2001 for the Prorogue of the Parliament and the dissolution of the House of Representatives 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 valid Prorogue of the Parliament, or a valid 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. 29. That the Special Gazette s421 neither was having the wording Government printer or simular wording on it, as such was not a publication within the strict meaning of Section 6 of the Act Interpretation Act 1901. 30. That as the Proclamation was never validly proclaimed on 8 October 2001 and neither was any subsequent Proclamation published to remedy the defect of the publication of the 5 October 2001 signed Proclamation, then there never was a valid Prorogue of the Parliament and neither a valid dissolution of the House of Representatives, and for

- 11 -
this all members of both Houses of Parliament failure to attend to the next 3 months of sittings, by Section 20 or 38 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution are deemed to have vacated their seats. 31. That the writs issued on 8 October 2003 by the Governor-General were defective, not only because they were issued prior to any Proclamation having been actually published, but also because the writs were in breach of legislative provisions, such as the election time table as applicable by Section 155,156 and 157 of the Australian Electoral Act 1918, despite each writ stating according to law. It might be stated that the Australian Electoral Commission prepared the defective writs for the Governor-General. 32. That the writs issued by the Governor of each State were defective, in that they were not according to law as was stated in each writ, where the Governors had been misled as to the true applicable legislative timetable. 33. That contrary to the past ruling of the High Court of Australia, the framers are recorded in the Hansard, that Section 30 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is and remains subject to Section 41. 34. That where the Proclamation was defective, as it cannot be applied backdated, then there never was any Prorogue of the Parliament, and/ or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, and by this all members of the 39th Parliament 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 members of Parliament, upon the expiry time of 2 months from the first day of sitting they failed to attend to. 35. 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 or the Senate unless this person is duly and properly elected. This never occurred. Hence, there is no Commonwealth Government or any 40th Parliament! As such, the GovernorGeneral cannot be advised by a non-existing Federal Executive as to make a declaration to go to war, as is 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. A declaration of war is a prerogative right, not a political right! 36. That Section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, as was indicated by the framers as recorded in the Hansard, was to give the Commonwealth only legislative powers for the broadest system applicable but ultimately the States determined further the election of Senators. Therefore, it was never intended by the framers to allow the Commonwealth to deprive the States of their rights, indeed, it

- 12 -
was set out considerably that this was not to be permitted, being it that Senate elections are State representative issues, not Commonwealth issues. 37. 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 Constitution stipulating that the States decide the 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 timetables for Senate elections and caused the writs by 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. 38. That unless elections are conducted in accordance with constitutional provisions and any legislation within constitutional provisions, there can be no deemed FAIR AND PROPER elections, 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 the purported 10 February 2001 election was null and void. 39. The Australian Electoral Commission and other Departments unduly obstructed the Applicant to obtain all relevant details/information within the provisions of the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, or otherwise, effectively obstructing the Applicant to place before this Court all relevant material. The request to the Australian government Solicitors to instruct their clients to cooperate and release details/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! 40. Despite that Star Track Express, the company that does and did the transport of Special 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, this company 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 it was 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 copy actually published was on 18 October 2001, as part of government Notices Gazette GN41. The Same with Tasmania on 22 October 2001.

- 13 -
The S421 was actually published in Victoria on 10 October 2001. In overall, writs were issued for the House of Representatives, before the seats were vacant, 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. 41. The Applicant refers to Exhibit GHSH-1 being the Special Gazette S421, which on the bar code shows it, has the publication date 10/10/2001! 42. The Applicant refers to the Exhibit GHSH-2, being a document released by the Commonwealth under FOI Act, showing that the Special Gazette s421 containing the 5 October dated Proclamation for prorogue the Parliament and dissolving the House of Representatives, was not actually transferred to Canberra until 9 October 2001, for publication. As such, never could have been published on 8 October 2001. 43. The Applicant refers to his book on CD, INSPECTOR-RIKATI and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA, ISBN 0-9580569-3-5 which set out in considerable details these matters, including containing relevant copies of documentation obtained from the Commonwealth to prove his case. 44. The Applicant refers to his book on CD, INSPECTOR-RIKAT & there is no government to go to war, ISBN 0-9580569-5-1 which has a copy of the entire 16-22003 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 19-22003 to be acted upon. 45. That the Applicant was naturalized on 28 March 1994, in the offices of the Immigration Department, without any involvement of any State officer. The certificate 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. Where the Commonwealth has no constitutional, powers to define/declare citizenship, then all political rights of Australians (naturalized or otherwise, are in question and so their rights and/or entitlements to vote in any Federal election. This, As in the State of Victoria the right to be an elector is upon being an Australian citizens according to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, an unconstitutional Act and so preventing any one in Victoria to be an elector. The applicant understands that in most other States/Territories the same applies as with Victoria. 46. That the issue of citizenship also goes to the root of electors and so to the validity of 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 be obtained AUTOMATICALLY by being a State citizen.

- 14 -
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 of Australia erred in law to hold that Section 41 of the Commonwealth of Australia no longer is relevant. The truth is, that the framers specifically made clear that Section 30 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution 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. 47. That the framers never intended to provide the Commonwealth with constitutional legislative powers to define/declare citizenship is shown by the following quotation; Hansard 2-3-1898 Mr. BARTON.. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a 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 Federal Parliament." (Heather Hill was 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! It may be noted that it was stated; we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution As such, if the Commonwealth (Federal Parliament) were to define/declare citizenship it thereby would control the political rights of electors of the States, and by this undermine the very guarantees/protections set out in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, to protect State rights. 48. That the High Court of Australia, purportedly declared that Section 41 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution no longer is applicable. However, no such constitutional powers exist for the High Court of Australia to declare any part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution to be no longer applicable. However, the Hansard proves that the framers intended this section 41 to be forever applicable!

- 15 -
The High Court of Australia is limited by Section 71 only to interpret the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution as to the legislative and executive powers of the Commonwealth, but lacks any constitutional powers to go beyond this. As such, has no power to declare any part of the said Constitution not being applicable. This is relevant to the issue as to who have a right to vote, as the Commonwealth now allows persons to become electors without first being electors of a State, the prerequisite in Section 41 to have a right to vote in Federal elections, providing for unconstitutional elections in that regard also. 49. That as the State of Victoria by its constitution requires a person to be an Australian citizen, in accordance with the Australian Citizenship 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 the Cross 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 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 State citizenship 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 unconstitutionally enforced by the High Court of Australia that a person must be enrolled on a Commonwealth Electoral Roll (merely because the Commonwealth unconstitutionally provided for this in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918). 50. The Applicant is aware that his numerous arguments are directly contrary to the numerous 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 English language, 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 would never have published the defeat of Dr Quick in regard of wanting to give the Commonwealth 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 to purport 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

- 16 -
obtain State citizenship, without needing to make a formal application to the Commonwealth, and then AUTOMATICALLY would obtain Australian citizenship. The framers made clear there was no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth to interfere with the Crown, hence the Australian Act for this also remains ULTRA VIRES, and that any British subject upon arrival and settling in a state could AUTOMATICALLY be an State citizen, and so an Australian citizen and there was nothing 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 Great Britain to be a foreign nation. 51. Likewise, the High Court of Australia seems to have misconceived the true intentions of the framers, when interpreting Section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. 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 of electing 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 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! As Section 51(xxxvii) does not at all provide for reference of legislative powers of the so called Australian Act, this Act never having been approved by referendum (as was needed to be constitutional valid) then is unconstitutional in its application. 52. The Applicant campaigned since 1992 about the invalid usage of the then Cross Vesting Act, in fact was before the High Court of Australia in 1994 and 1995, yet ended up nowhere. Yet, in HCA27 of 1997 Wakim case, 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, it appears to the Applicant that the High Court of Australia made numerous other errors in law, this in turn making it extremely difficult for the Applicant to obtain a FAIR AND PROPER hearing before the High Court of Australia, in view that the criticism exposing errors in law then likely will make judges resentful against the applicant and so cause the denial to deal with matters to be heard upon their MERITS. 53. The Applicant received from the Government a warning as to possible terrorist attacks, 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 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 RIGHT to approach this Court to seek Orders, which may diminish this 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 Defence forces unduly at risk also. Both, for harm and possible war tribunal charges.

- 17 -
54. That the possible WAR against Iraq would be unconstitutional and without legal justification, as set out in the 16 February 2003 Affidavit that was lodged on 18 February 2003. 55. This Affidavit is not and should not be seen to set out all relevant material, as to do so would 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 content of 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. As this Court obviously doesnt like to have an Affidavit of huge volume, the Applicant therefore pursues to file this initial Affidavit, with the right to file further additional supportive material for litigation. 56. The Applicant seeks that the ORDERS as stated in the DRAFT ORDERS NISI are issued, to avoid any further delay in people to obtain their liberty and so their freedom, 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. 57. The Applicant has been on a government benefit since 1986. Actually was severely in debt in 2000 by borrowing moneys to assist others through his special lifeline service 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 this court 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 would have 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 occurred before Marshall J on 7 November 2001, when Mr Peter Hanks QC made false and misleading 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). 58. The Applicant is aware that this Court could yet again refuse to deal with matters upon 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 innocent civilians that could most likely have been avoided had the high Court of Australia on the 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 unconstitutionally invade States and so the property of its residents, etc.

- 18 -
59. The Applicant has forwarded copies of INSPECTOR-RIKATI and the BANANA 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 no government to go to war. A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia, 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 be able to obtain copies of the material that was placed before the High Court of Australia, time and again. 60. It are these and numerous other issues that the Applicant, being aware that he needed to file supportive evidence, did set out extensively in his 16 February 2003 sworn Affidavit 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 or ought 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. 61. The Applicant maintains that the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to go to 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 Hill being 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 seeking to ignore that it declared Great Brittain a foreign nation. As such, as long as the High Court 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 of Australia. 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. 62. The Applicant, being an Australia, is as much subject to possible terrorist attacks and other 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 delay by this Court to issue orders, may result that in the meantime an attack upon, say, Melbourne could result to millions of deaths. 63. Abraham Lincoln Stated the following on February 12, 1865:

- 19 -
The people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
64. That with a likely pending war with Iraq, the Applicant seeks this Court to deal with matters 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 military involvement 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. 65. That a lawyer for the defendant Judith McGillivray BA JBB (when attending to legal 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 MERIT in the Appeal. 66. That the Applicant is not seeking the High Court of Australia to deal with whatever political 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 the true intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution! 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 in Australia. 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 to address those matters appropriately, and neither appears to be relevant. Australias position 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 New South 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. 67. That as Australia is one of the founders of the United Nations, and claims to be entitled 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 Nations Charter, 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. 68. That on 5-2-2003 there was a vote of no confidence in the conduct of the purported Howard Government in regard of with the conduct of deployment of Australian

- 20 -
troops for an impending war with Iraq. As such, the Parliament does NOT approve of this deployment. 69. That failing any declaration of war having been actually published, the Applicant takes the position that any deployment of Australian troops, (with or without approval of the United Nations, indeed contrary to the intentions of the United Nations) is unconstitutional, being without the approval of the Parliament. 70. Upon arrival at the Federal Court of Australia on 7 November 2001, for the hearing of the 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.. 71. That Marshall J never attended to the issue of CASE STATED, the Applicant had before the Federal Court of Australia on 7 November 2001. 72. That at the 7 November 2001 hearing, before Marshall J of the Federal Court of Australia, 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 2002 directions 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 2nd Defendant (being the Commonwealth also for the Australian Electoral Commission). Mr Peter Hanks QC for the Australian Electoral Commission did not inform the Court as to who represented the 1st Defendants, albeit not until 9 August 2002 (some more then 9 months 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. 73. The Applicant takes the position/submits, that the matters before Marshall J required the 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. 74. That Applicant takes the position/submits that Mr Peter Hanks QC for the Australian Government Solicitors representing the then 2nd Defendant, the Commonwealth, 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 the Judgment 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 miscarriage of justice. PAVLEKOVIC-SMITH v AEC (1993) 115 ALR 641, Dawson J;

- 21 -
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 be entertained 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 in McKenzie v Commonwealth. Schorel v Elms (1994) Unreported M2944X of 1989 SA27 of 1993 Page 16 and 17: "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done" 75. 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 351 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) had nothing to do with INJUNCTIONS, where the Parliament specifically had inserted in Section 383 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 the title; Federal Court of Australia, as being the appropriate Court. 76. In the meantime, the Director of Public Prosecutions commenced a criminal trial against 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 an unconstitutional/defective election. Also, that if there are no State citizens, then there are no electors. The Applicant filing a Section 78B of the Judiciary Act NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS on 4 December 2001 in the Magistrates Court 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 the High 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. 77. Challenge to validity of electoral matters. Hansard 13-9-1897 The 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.

- 22 -
Clause 50 (then) is what is now Section 47 It 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. It must 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 unconstitutional election 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. 78. The Proclamation was actually published firstly in Canberra on 9 October 2001, and there after over a period of 2 weeks in the various States and Territories. Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998) Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible. Either there was compliance or there was not." As such, either the writs were in compliance with Statue requirement, or it was not, and so void and of no effect, by this so any purported election held. The same with the proclamation, if it was not properly published, prior to the time the event was to take place, then there was no valid Proclamation. Special Gazette S421 (containing the Proclamation) was not even printed prior to the event the Proclamation referred to! As such, never could have been published in time to be valid! 79. This Affidavit is not and must not be held to contain all details, it is merely indicating that the Applicant has grounds to pursue matters, as the 16 February 2003 Affidavit remains the basis of the Applicants case, and so any material referred to. 80. The Applicant views that the conduct of Hayne J was totally unreasonable in the circumstances, and without legal justification, in particular where the proceedings could take over/include the outstanding Appeal M114 of 2001 also, and considering the near war conditions, no undue delay ought to have been caused for the Court to hear matters upon its MERITS, where time is of the essence. 81. That the framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution also made it very clear (as recorded in Hansard) that Senators of Territories could represent the Territories in the Senate, other then having any right to vote. The High Court of Australia past decision to rule otherwise, clearly was an error in law and deprive Australian electors of a proper constituted Senate.

- 23 -
82. That the Applicant is well aware that the High Court of Australia having made numerous conflicting judgments versus that of the intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898 may not be pleased that a, so called layman in law, were to expose its incorrect judgments, however, this is not a case of pride, but one to ensure that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is applied as intended by the framers, taking into consideration any valid referendum passed, and the Applicant would see it as an act of treason if any judge were to deny matters to be heard upon its MERITS, as it would be in defiance of what the framers intended. They did then (as shown in the Hansard) discuss the likelihood of Attorney Generals not wanting to take up a cause because of political reasons, and for this a person be entitled to litigate in his/her own right before the High Court of Australia. As such, unless matters are litigated upon their MERITS it would be to defy the intentions of the framers and a denial of the rights enshrined in the Constitution! 83. It is a very serious matter, that the Applicant since 1-11-2001 sought before the High Court of Australia to pursue elections to be conducted in a proper manner and as yet, the High Court of Australia failed to do so. In the meantime, Australians may be plunged into a war, what in time might be shown to be an unconstitutional Government. Australias future being severely jeopardized because the High Court of Australia so far refused to deal with matters upon their MERITS, despite the guarantees provided by the framers for a person to have such right. 84. The Application denied to proceed by Hayne J on 19 March 2003 is an Application in its own rights and ought to be considered as such, irrespective if any other Application had been made previously with the same or simular orders sought as no judicial decision was made setting out specifically the MERITS of each issue sought to be litigated and if so justified. 85. As the WAR may already be in progress by the time the applicant file the application for Leave to Proceed, the Applicant has forwarded a facsimile to the Deputy Registrar of the Melbourne Registry of the High Court of Australia, seeking that a judge is on stand-bye, to consider the Application, once the hardcopies are filed, as to ensure that if any Orders are issued, then the Applicant can serve them upon the legal representatives of the Commonwealth, the Australian Government Solicitors, as soon as a decision is made, as to have immediately all troops to be withdrawn. 86. That albeit the decision of Hayne J was made on 19 march 2003, the Deputy Registrar, and only after the applicant requested for information, finally faxed the decision on late 20-3-2003, as such valuable time was unduly wasted, and so preventing the Applicant to file an application for leave to proceed at an earlier time, before any actual involvement of Australian troops in any WAR against Iraq. 87. That the applicant refers to Exhibit GHSH-3 being the Orders Nisi sought 88. For the above stated I seek that this Court urgently provide the orders as sought by the Applicant in the DRAFT ORDERS NISI, also as to also avoid a possible onslaught

- 24 -
of civilians, and avoiding any possible backlash upon the Commonwealth, and those residing within it, as well as to ensure that constitutional valid elections will be held. Sworn at Before me GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA Applicant/Prosecutor Filed by; Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka 107 Graham Road, Rosanna East (Viewbank), Vic 2084 this 20th day of March Two Thousand and Three


12-020030320-Affidavit-08 Affidavit M47 of 2003

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

12-020030320-Affidavit-08 Affidavit M47 of 2003

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

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

Phone number: 03 9457 70209

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anda mungkin juga menyukai