File name; (Sam 1 other areas of interest)
I Samuel Broad of the Peoples' Mandate do support Gerrit of his comments below, because no
Referendum has ever been held to support any other power and this was further supported by the
Electors when the Electors voted to keep the Constitution in the 1999 Referendum. 
This is why I have put the files together regarding the Contempt of the Constitution.
From: Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka []
To: Mal <>

 it seems to me that Wayne misunderstand what the Constitution is about. My responsibility is not to
seek to justify what Jack Straw or anyone else may have done in signing documents or whatever,
rather that it is for others doing so have to justify their conduct.
The Constitution does not place any onus upon me or for that anyone else to prove any possible
wrong doings by others to prove them somehow to be lawful!
I have never made any claims in regard of Jack Straw and so why on earth Wayne expects me to
justify his conduct is beyond me.
I can however state the following and that is that not the Australian Government (as it is known as
albeit it is the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia) but the Home Office at 10 Downing Street
is which recommended to Her Majesty which British born subject of Her Majesty will be the next

In my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues
I have canvassed this extensively and therefore no need to go into the same details again.

However sufficient to state that if Jack Straw or anyone else of the Home Office were to recommend
to Her Majesty (as the British monarch - not some nonsense about Queen of Australia) the
appointment of a Governor-General to the Commonwealth of Australia then he would be well within
constitutional provisions to do so. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the legal link to
validate Royal Assent of all legislation by the Commonwealth of Australia rested by a Governor-General
being appointed upon recommendation of the Home Office by Her Majesty as if the appointment were
on recommendation of the Australian Government then the legal link is broken and it would not be
a constitutional valid royal assent. 
Isaac Isaacs was well aware of this when he was purportedly appointed Governor-General!
As after all he was one of the Framers of the Constitution!
Hence, constitutionally not a single legislation purportedly enacted since Isaac Isaacs purported to
give royal assent has any constitutional value!
This was on of the numerous other submissions I placed before the Courts and again the Crown
did not whatsoever seek to challenge my submissions and were comprehensively defeated on
19 July 2006 by me.
Now, I view it would therefore be better that people use this landmark court case, as to pursue
matters further, as the Crown is bound by it.
There is a DIRECT and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL in that regard against the Crown.
Wayne should (and so others also) that I do not have to prove anything as I have already done so
in Court and defeated the Crown comprehensively and therefore entitled to the benefits of this
court success. if Wayne or anyone else desires to argue differently then they can seek to obtain a
court decision in their favour but it is not for them to pursue I somehow have to prove to others
what the courts already decided in my favour.
In particular where a book was published that contains all the material as Wayne and others have to
do is to go to the National Library of Australia at Canberra and read up on it. As such they do not
even need to purchase a copy to do so.
Jim B in his email stated;
If seems that both Mr Hughes and the next PM Mr Bruce were sure that the status of Australia
had changed when we joined the league of nations.
How on earth can a constitutional status of being a POLITICAL UNION be changed merely
because Prime Ministers may fancy this?
A Prime minister is nothing more but like other Ministers an advisor to the Governor-General,
who is the chief Executive of the Commonwealth of Australia!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
(Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established."
Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the
political Union which is sought to be established.

It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
are going to create under that Union.

The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the
admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a
Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.

Wake up Australia and finally become aware that it doesn’t matter what Prime Ministers may assume
or for that what the United Nations, the League of Nations or others may hold to be applicable as
we have a Constitution and unless and until We, the People, decide to amend it there is no
amendment to the way the constitution applies. 

I would urge all to get a healthy debate going without the repeat of all the nonsense, so we have a
constructive debate where we can progress to hold politicians and judges accountable instead of
canvassing time and again the same nonsense.

I understand that there are people who may desire Australia to become a REPUBLIC but they should
keep in mind that doing it for the wrong reasons isn’t going to resolve anything. Likewise the
Monarchist must understand that they are no better in their nonsense. Those who pursue to retain
the STATUS QUO or otherwise should first become competent in what the Constitution stands for
and how it applies and not they pursue nonsense because they lack the ability or otherwise to do so.

Anyone who fancy the Commonwealth of Australia to become a Republic or a Monarchy simply
hasn’t got a clue what the constitution is about as neither is constitutionally permissibly. My books have
canvassed this extensively already and I am not going to detail the same time and again.

I have always made clear I challenge anyone to prove me wrong, but where the Crown was already
comprehensively defeated by me in a 5-year epic battle then you do need to present a solid legal
argument and not merely what some Prime Minister may have fancy or assumed!

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

--- On Sat, 28/3/09, Mal <> wrote:
From: Mal <>
Subject: other areas of interest.
To: "'Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka'" <>
Received: Saturday, 28 March, 2009, 9:29 PM

From: wayne levick []
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: other areas of interest.

OK. Let's assume that the Commonwealth Constitution passed by the British Parliament is still valid.
Will Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka please explain how Jack Straw's forged signatures of QEII at the top
of the Appointment Documents for the Commonwealth’s Governors and
Governors-General cut it legally?

Can he find where the Queen of Australia or Jack Straw gets a look-in, in
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution?
Does he appreciate that we're talking about British and international law and its application prior and
subsequent to the passing of the "Commonwealth" constitution?
And does anyone appreciate that this has never been about law -
only economics and it's lap-dog, politics?
--- On Fri, 27/3/09, Mal <> wrote:
From: Mal <>
Subject: other areas of interest.
To: "Wayne Levick" <>
Received: Friday, 27 March, 2009, 8:45 PM

From: Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka []
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:26 PM
To: Bev Pattenden
Subject: Re: Fw: other areas of interest.

Mark Geerlings appears to be on about the Constitution being invalid because of how international
organizations may decide.

Now lets take it this way. If you purchase a property and it is in your name and then I sell your
property to a friend, would you then go along with having your property sold from underneath you or
would you make clear that you could not care less if I pretend to have sold your property but it has
no legal value as it was not for me to sell?

Well, I have heard so many going on and on about the constitution no longer being valid since 1919, etc,
and this nonsense keeps propping up. I was fed the same nonsense until
I discovered it to be exactly that “nonsense”.

It doesn’t matter if the United Nations or whatever may recognise the commonwealth of Australia to
be an independent nation, as the United nations had never any constitutional standing.
It did not exist when the Constitution came into force in 1901 and to argue that somehow the
United nations created nearly 5-decades later then somehow can overrule the constitution
is utter and sheer nonsense.

If anyone desires to make a sensible argument then let them show , not by mere assuming but by a
proper legal set out why the commonwealth of Australia in 1919 became an independent nation.
Garbage even the High Court of Australia rejected when Walter Joose tried it.

Now, whatever Billy Hughes as Prime Minister may have done in 1919 is irrelevant because the
moment you accept that a Prime Minister can overrule the Constitution then what is the use of
having any constitution at all?

The politicians loves it when people are divided by having all those nonsense of arguments as in the
meantime they can get away with their rot.  Therefore it is important that people stop that rot and
rather combine their efforts as to get things back on track. We have a constitution and I have so far
never found in the Constitution any provision that shows that the United Nations can overrule
the constitution.

As a matter of fact the Framers of the Constitution well aware that some provisions
in the Constitution may be undesirable for the international community but as they made clear the
commonwealth of Australia was bound by the Constitution that was by Australians for Australians,
even so a British Act, to seek to safeguard Australian jobs.

Therefore it is not relevant what International law may be about because ultimately it cannot overrule
the Constitution, and the High Court of Australia itself has been on record on this issue also that it
also holds it cannot override the Constitution.

As such, while International law may be complimentary to constitutional provisions it cannot override
constitutional provisions!

There is a big difference in this.

As such, the whole world may have a meeting to decide that the commonwealth of Australia now is
part of Indonesia but that will not then mean that it is so because we have a Constitution that clearly
does not provide for this.

The moment you accept that International Law or other kind of decisions may override the
Constitution because it may suit you purposes to something then the danger is that others may hold it
may override your rights as a property holder and that they may hold landownership no longer is
permissible. Now, be careful for what you wish because if you accept the kind of nonsense that is
going about as to International law, United nations or other bodies somehow can compromise our
constitutional rights then wait till you get someone in power like an Adolf Hitler (by whatever other
name he/she may go about) and you will regret having sacrificed your constitutional rights.

I am not saying you will do so but merely give a warning to others that we do better to work together
to stop the nonsense and keep the government in check then to waste our time and effort with
the nonsense that keeps going about.

Walter Joose did make known to me that albeit in 1999 he was pushing this same story about 1919
that he knew that it was wrong, albeit then didn’t reveal that as he was holding all kinds of public
meetings about 1919, etc.

As yet neither Mark Geerlings or others ever presented a proper legal set out as to support their
arguments, other then they merely rely upon whatever some Prime minister in 1919 argued, etc.

The fact that the Prime Minister then and not even now never had any powers to interfere with the
Constitution somehow seems not to get through their thick skull!

If Mark Geerlings or for that matter anyone else wants to show in a proper legal argument why
whatever happened in 1919 was relevant to the Constitution then let them show in which section of
the Constitution there is a provision for their argument, rather then merely seeking to
claim it happens to be so.
Lets hope they stop their nonsense and concentrate on reality.

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

Thank you Mark.   I am doing a 3 page submission on the Senate Inquiry,  but not qualified or
knowledgeable enough to get into this too deeply other than to state my abhorrence to what has
happened to our country.  I don't know where you got my address from, but I am passing this info
on to the group, hoping that someone, somewhere, somehow will be able to do something!   


----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Geerlings
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:09 PM
Subject: other areas of interest.

Dear Bev,
Use the link below. There is more but by the time you research their statements you will find the
united nations is real the international criminal court (war crimes tribunal) and the Geneva Convention
all recognise Australia as a sovereign nation. Don't get me wrong, we need laws, governments and
order. Just they have to be legal and of the peoples choice. My belief is that with the evidence
I have seen and used, the current corporation (Australian government) is a British one which is illegal.
But here is the clincher;  

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS operating in Australia, WHO are linked to and are sitting
underneath the INTERNATIONALISED CORPORATION umbrella known as

CIK (0000805157)
SIC: 8880 - American Depositary Receipts
State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630

Business Address
This is the Link;
Thanks for your time Bev.

Kind Regards

Mark Geerlings.