Constitutional crisis if ........

1 recipients CC: recipientsYou More BCC: recipientsYou FROM:

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

TO:

Gerrit H.

Sunday, 1 January 2012 2:35 PM

Message Body
THE CALL TO UNITE For many years now I have been campaigning in regard of the constitution and the proper interpretation and application of the meaning of the constitution and now it is well overdue that others join into this. . As I made clear the 2001 federal election was unconstitutional as the writs of the election had been issued on 8 October 2001 even so the Gazette proclaiming the dissolution of the Parliament was not published until 9 October 2001. After all if the police caught you driving without a driving licence on 8 October 2001 and you then subsequently have a driver licence issued on 9 October 2001 then this cannot validate the unlicensed driving as if you were licensed! The same if you steal a car and then getting caught on 8 October 2001 then go to the car trader on 9 October 2001 and pay for the car and then claim that somehow you didnt steal the car on 8 October 2001. As such neither John Howard or others were validly elected in 2001. Big deal you may say? Well if John Howard was not validly elected then that means that by maximum he could have been appointed for a mere 3 months to be Prime Minister and that means that at the time of the Iraq invasion on 19 March 2003 he couldnt have been Prime minister. Hence he has no protection of Office of the Prime Minister, and neither any other Members of his alleged Cabinet. More over, as only the Governor-General can declare war and Hollingworth at the time embroiled in to the failure to act in sexual abuse issues didnt issue any declaration of war to invade Iraq then clearly by this also John Howard had no constitutional powers to authorise Australian troops to invade a friendly nation, being Iraq. Indeed the Crimes Act (CTH) specifically makes it unlawful to act against a friendly country. . For years I have pursued a Royal Commission into the invasion into Iraq and it is well overdue you all support this to be done. Obviously Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard and

others would also be implicated by this all as each of them as a Member of Parliament had a constitutional obligation to prevent John Howard to unconstitutionally invade Iraq. Australian soldiers who died in Iraq didnt do so to defend the Commonwealth of Australia as they were rather misused and abused to fight a unconstitutional war and hence I view the families of the fallen soldiers should personally sue John Howard and his accomplishes. . Prior to the invasion into Iraq I did write to the then General Cosgrove that I view it would constitute war crime if he were to invade Iraq without first having the Governor-General declaring war against Iraq and as such he too could be held legally accountable for his involvement in the armed invasion and the killing of so many and the destruction of Iraq. . Then the judges of the High Court of Australia should be held legally accountable for their part as I view it of complicity in it all where on not less then 4 occasions they refused to accept my s75(v) application against John Howard and others to invade Iraq. The Court simply denied me my constitutional right to adjudicate by simply refusing to accept the applications whatsoever. Then consider the issue of nationality and regardless if you are pro republican or pro monarchist we all must in the end accept that we have a constitution and that we all, not just ordinary citizens, are bound by the rule of law being the constitution. . Then on what constitutional basis could the High Court of Australia sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns on behalf of the Parliament and not sitting as a High Court of Australia determine that somehow the commonwealth of Australia became over time a independent nation in complete contradiction to what the constitution stands for. To me this was treason by the High Court of Australia. . We are under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and it is and remains to be a British enactment and therefore regardless what may be argued otherwise we are and remain to be Subjects of the British Crown. If we desire to alter this then not unelected judges but We, the People, will pursue to do so in a legitimate manner. . We cannot permit judges to fancy their own kind of constitution to be applied that can change as to their contemporary views as then not a citizen could ever assure himself of what his rights might be. Heather Hill was at the time constitutionally validly elected but it appears to me the judges of the High Court of Australia made a political decision on behalf of the parliament to declare otherwise. This to me is treason, where then they do as if this is an ordinary decision of the High Court of Australia and in the process pervert the course of JUSTICE. . Constitutionally any person currently in the Parliament who has sworn alliance to the Queen of Australia would be by section 44 of the constitution be ineligible to sit in the parliament because they have sworn alliance to a foreign Queen (foreign to the constitution) because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Queen in the constitution relates to the British Crown. .

I did not participate in the creation of the constitution but I am entitled to have the true meaning and application enforced and I call upon all to join me in this battle for justice. . We cannot allow mass murder to be permitted with our sanction as if we accept that we can unilaterally invade a friendly country as legally Iraq was at the time, then what would stop Indonesia, Japan, china or whatever other country do the same to us? It is in our own interest important that we pursue a Royal Commission. We have the confiscation of property of those ordinary convicted of crimes but yet we do not do the same for politicians, instead we unconstitutionally reward them with all kinds of benefits. It is because there is a lack of will power by the general community to hold them accountable that politicians will not just continue but make it worse for us and that is why we need to hold them legally accountable and so also judges involved. Constitutionally the Queen cannot declare war on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia because only the Governor-General can do so and therefore we have to ask ourselves how often did any Governor-General since federation publish in the Gazette a declaration of war against any nation since federation? And when did any GovernorGeneral publish in the Gazette a declaration of peace, as to formally end the war? Yes, technically we remain at war with any country to which we had a warlike conduct but didnt have a declaration of peace published in the Gazette. .
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE . Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE

.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be heard.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal. END QUOTE

Why would you as a citizen accept their unconstitutional conduct when you can be imprisoned for a mere unpaid infringement notice? . Have a look how corrupt State governments have gone their way to manipulate the legal system that it and so private companies on its behalf can issue court orders, including warrants, by the usage of a computer without any formal hearing and then you can end up for months in prison without ever having had a fair and proper trial to your guilt or innocence. This is completely contrary to the legal principles embedded in the constitution but clearly politicians do not care less as to the rule of law unless it can be used against you and me. Well that must stop and we must hold them all legally accountable. Once you start with one and succeed then others will quickly learn a lesson and we may then return to a democratic conducted government where the rule of law (the constitution) will be enforced against all and not just as it may suit the politicians from time to time. As I stated also on 11-09-11; QUOTE As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is that those who participated actively into the murderous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq upon the claim that the world would be a safer place still have not been held legally accountable. . The articles below underlines that even the U.S. own services hold that the world is not safe rather more dangerous and that all the invasions resulted was to provide more support for those seeking to retaliate. . We were the aggressors to unilaterally invade and bomb Iraq back into the stone age. . We showed no respect for the rights of those who were innocent of any wrongdoing. . At the time of September 11 then already the issue of invading Iraq was proposed by George Bush staff and so also considering the Senate already had passed a bill fir the regime change in Iraq. As such, Australia in its planning in the city Tampa way back in 2002 to invade Iraq was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to deceive Australians and we must not waiver to hold a ROYAL COMMISSION into the invasions and charge those who authorised it all and participated to it being invaded. . Keep in mind that if we fail (to hold those who authorised the UNCONSTITUTIONAL and so unlawful invasions) then we may just have to accept someone else doing onto us as we did onto Iraq and then we have no moral or other grounds to object because we showed an example for them to follow. . Gerrit

. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka . 11-9-11 . END QUOTE . I am not aware that any movement eventuated to pursue those who acted in clear violation of the constitution and so our constitutional rights and privileges. . We need to unite and prove not only to ourselves but also to our descendants that we were not cowards to fearful to stand up for our rights and ended up enslaved by the politicians but that we ultimately stood up to defend the constitution which reflects our rights and privileges for the good of mankind also. . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE . It is very sad that I even have to write this article rather then that people themselves ventured out to pursue JUSTICE against those who abuse and misuse their powers. . My email inboxes are flooded by people forwarding me emails about their at times pity issues but when it comes to action to avoid such incidents in the first place then somehow they are too busy going to the footy, cricket, pub or whatever. Well I give you a message that as long as you are ignorant to reality then do not bother others. If you cant give a damn about the future of your children and other love ones then hang your head in shame, as I view you are not a worthy person. . The world is full of tyrants and they only can achieve this because the weak allows them to get to this. Not uncommon I get comments like; Why dont you take them on in court? With other words they expect me not just to explore constitutional issues but to do all thew work in the courts so they can so to say sit at the sideline and pick the fruits of my labour when I succeed in court and they have nothing to do other then to claim they were supporting me. Well what kind of support you must not ask! . When recently a 9 year little girl that is very disabled had a major operation and days later still was very down I was asked to come to the hospital. I didnt ask; what can I do? I just attended and just being there standing for about 12 hours while she was holding my hands while going in and out of conscious turned out making the difference to her that she was recovering suddenly considerably. I didnt need to be a doctor or have medical qualifications all I needed was to be there for the child. And this I have been doing for more then 3 decades when people contacted me and as they

often commented, even years later, I was there for them when they needed someone. So what I never had time to go on holidays, go to the footy, cricket or whatever as my life is filled with joy of what I have achieved. It is important that others are likewise minded and stop creating excuses why they cannot do something, etc. When I stood for election there were some people who came out to do letter boxing despite whatever physical problems they may have had. They proved that they cared and in their own way wanted to contribute as they could. And those who did so were well aware I appreciated their efforts in that regard. It is not about how much or how little one can do but to be there as part of many likeminded persons and if we all contribute a bit then ion the overall this can make a huge difference. To give you an example. A person may not be able to physically or financial able to assist in a campaign but may be a great cartoonist and so be able to design cartoons to the particular subjects and so advance the campaign in their own way. Then some one may know someone else who can give some required publicity and so merely arranging this also can make a huge difference. When I am on Sydney Radio SkidRow with its host Jack Frost he in his own way provide considerable support to the constitutional issues regardless we may not agree with each other on all issues. As such, he has in his own way become a valuable member of society to pursue JUSTICE. At time we may have disagreements as we are bound to do as members of the community but ultimately we must always place the cause at the forefront and not use personal antagonism as to prevent cooperation for the cause. . Whatever your function and position and indeed your wealth may be in life in the end once we are death our legacy will be what we did for our fellow man and the long lasting results of this then how much we did for ourselves. . For 2012 I look forwards to all those who are prepared and willing to pursue JUSTICE to join me to pursue a Royal Commission into the murderous invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan to start with and hold those who abused/misused their powers legally accountable. It will be a start but will ensure that it will also be a warning to other would be dictators/tyrants/etc that we will take it no more. Even a State Royal Commission to pursue the death of soldiers of its State may result that the Federal Government will finally also accept a federal Royal Commission to be held. We must seek to achieve some action and everyone in their own state may seek to achieve this so that ultimately we can hold those who acted unconstitutionally/unlawfully legally accountable. We must consider that we have many of the Iraqi and Afghan communities now residing in the Commonwealth of Australia and they deserve our support to have a Royal Commission held into why their native countries were invaded by Australian troops and many of their loved ones were in the process killed or injured. Again, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I seek to provide my views to the real meaning and application of the constitution and it is for others to join me to ensure we do have this appropriately enforced and politicians and/or judges who violate this must be held legally accountable. Just consider that if John Howard were ultimately found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc, and his wealth be used to wards compensating the victims of his crimes then politicians and/or judges may so to say think twice before committing such offences. Now they do what they like and making secret court settlements where

we the innocent taxpayers are not even given details as to how much of our taxation is being used for those secret settlements. Why not? This is the false security we must get rid off. Consider the email about the Obama crisis (such as the lack of constitutionally validly being elected) but do realise we have much of the same for more than a decade just that few seem to care enough about it to try to appropriately deal with it. Gerrit Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 1-1-2012

-----Original Message----From: Charles Heckman [mailto:cwheckman@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2012 02:01 AM To: 'Jacob Roginsky' Subject: [AMOJ_MAIN] Constitutional crisis if President Obama was not born in the United States Nobody has yet proven that President Obama was not born in the United States, but he himself resisted providing any evidence concerning his birth for several years, leading to speculation about his eligibility to become president. It would create an interesting legal crisis if conclusive proof were produced showing that he is not native born. According to the United States Constitution, which has been largely abandoned in government, especially by the judicial branch, a foreign-born person cannot be made president of the United States. That would make President Obama's acts in office null and void. That means that his executive orders and the bills he signed into law would all be null and void, as well. It would create a problem with succession. Normally, when a president leaves office for any reason, he is replaced by the vice-president, but if the president's election were null and void, so would the election of the vicepresident, because a vote for one counts as a vote for both. Would Vice-President Biden then become president in spite of his invalid election? Would Senator McCain then become president because he had the second highest number of electoral votes? The Constitution does not explain what to do in such a situation. Naturally, the courts would horn in and come up with different and contradictory solutions, and by the time the Supreme Court got around to issuing a decision, the presidential term would have come to an end. What about the next election? If President Obama were allowed to stay in office by the courts temporarily, or even after it was shown conclusively that he was not a native-born citizen, would it be possible fir him to run for re-election? Could he be re-elected and stay in office for part or all of a second term while the courts deliberate? Until the Supreme Court renders a decision determining what would happen next, could he legally order our armed forces into combat? If he gave orders to civil servants or military personnel, could they simply refuse to obey under the theory that he has no legal right to give orders? At this point in history, nobody can really predict how the courts would decide. Judges have already gotten used to making decisions while disregarding the letter and spirit of our laws. That means that the government might degenerate into anarchy, with the rich and mighty fighting each

other. Those in charge now certainly do not want their positions of power threatened, which explains why they have turned a blind eye on the question of President Obama's place of birth all along. Charles Heckman To: billandjaneswenson@gmail.com; bill@lawlessamerica.com; drdianeshafer@yahoo.com; hoove001@gmail.com; AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com From: STOMASIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:08:14 -0500 Subject: [AMOJ_MAIN] Fwd: VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES SUPREME COURT

-----Original Message----From: Karen Gaebler <kgaebler@hotmail.com> To: Doug Rider <drider118@gmail.com>; Bill Younger <gulfstar123@yahoo.com>; Angie/Ken Sutton <ken1angie2@aol.com>; John/Katy Tomasic/Hoover <stomasic@aol.com>; Ron/Martha Losey <bueno1023@yahoo.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2011 2:59 pm Subject: FW: VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES SUPREME COURT

VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT. Just researched : Apparently Hawaii had until August 8, 2011, to produce documents and open the books for a full investigation. This order was delivered on July 5, 2011, under a direct order of the Supreme Court. VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT AP - WASHINGTON D.C. -

In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Now released, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born inKenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President in an article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," which led

some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, < U>Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter... LET OTHERS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T ! SubjectRE: Issue of Passport? Paul Hollrah at FSM asked and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did Obama use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ? So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one. Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A : Yes, by his own admission. Q: What passport did he travel under? A : There are only three possibilities: 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, . or

3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 , he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he were traveling with a British passport , that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport , that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967. Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer. If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our countrys future is truly in grave danger and needs your attention and active support.

____________________________________________________________

Gerrit for Governor-General to reclaim our constitutional rights! (Do note that donations are welcome because what I have been doing and still am is financially a very costly exercise as to assist people, without charge, over the decades! How much really is your constitutional and other legal rights worth to protect?) MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 61394577209 .

Email; mayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com "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://scribd.com/InspectorRikati

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

Make sure the candidate you vote for can deliver on his/her promises even if his/her party doesn't get into government!

Self-Help for Pro Se and Pro Per Litigants - Lawsuit Self-Help Step-by-Step Jurisdictionary