Dear Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka,
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to
safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people.
2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the
Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should
be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi).
Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to
savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which
can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers
of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does
NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take
place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is
what would happen, the International Community would ostracise
Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America,
leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without
the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not
only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia,
they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome
Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the
Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help
White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth
enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975
2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia:
How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to
pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police
to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is
"discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people
to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee
(chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights,
and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory"
laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the
intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their
corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way,
ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in
denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all,
they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined
"discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's
game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask
is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost
continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne
J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the
Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before
the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary.
Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of
ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it
say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief
Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew
about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him
the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and
judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a
Corrupt, Racist White nation
Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are
applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their
friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs
in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the
RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can
set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an
incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member
John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT
jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and
evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst
case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we
brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including
French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in
Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will
be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal
responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to
deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the
Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by
order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious
Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting
extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and
glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the
validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of
corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will
test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR
on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am
6th Floor (?)
Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs
and they decided to sweep it under the carpet;
Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges
Inquiry into Access to Justice
They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites
want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in
excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying
out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of
Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing
discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act,
with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting
justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is
dead in Australia.
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about
racism but what I found was;
Pham v French & Ors  HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008)
HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that
racial discrimination is unlawful.
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no
powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically
provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race
and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally
permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation
purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against
any specific race and is entitled to do so.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against
a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this
legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive
in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the
true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions
of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth
is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial
Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within
external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
legislative powers within “external powers” were and could only be
derived of legislative powers already provided in the constitution. As
such, the commonwealth could not for example make some treaty about
education with a foreign country and then claim it now has legislative
powers to deal with education because it is not in principle a
legislative powers that was provided to the Commonwealth. The
legislative powers of the Racial discrimination Act cannot eventuate
merely because the commonwealth fancy to make some treaty with
whomever because of that principle were adopted then there was
absolutely no need for the Framers of the Constitution to provide
specific legislative powers within s.51 and s52 because all it needed
to do was to give it original powers in all matters.
The Framers of the Constitution for example specifically stated
that “environment” was to remain State legislative powers. Hence,
“external powers” cannot override the limitations and cannot by some
backdoor manner provide the Commonwealth with legislative powers it
was specifically denied by the Framers of the constitution.
Another example is that the Commonwealth has no legislative powers
to determine the nationality of a person born within the Commonwealth
of Australia as none of the s.51 subsections permit for this. The
Commonwealth can naturalise aliens but again you find no legislative
powers to determine the nationality of any child born within the
commonwealth of Australia as they are by the legal principles embedded
in the Constitution “subject of the British Crown.
It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the
Constitution are; “British subject”, “to make persons subjects of the
British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial authority”, “What
is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to
say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.”.
It is beyond the Parliament and also the High Court of Australia
to alter the nationality of any subject of the Queen.
The High Court of Australia is constituted by the constitution and
as such cannot override the legal principles embedded in the
constitution. As such, the Sue v Hill and the Tasmania Dam decisions
were without legal force as the High Court of Australia exceeded its
Aboriginals supported the 1967 referendum to amend s.51(xxvi) so
they too could be discriminated against, precisely what the Framers of
the Constitution sought to prevent, and as such Aboriginals cannot now
complain about racial discrimination where they supported the
referendum for this.
What however Aboriginals can complain about is that the Northern
Territory Intervention not being a law against all Aboriginals
(consider Hindmarsh case) then it is invalid in law. Either all
Aboriginals anywhere in the Commonwealth of Australia were subjected
to special legislation or none at all.
Likewise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Act is
unconstitutional as it deals with more then one race!
Do keep in mind that the Framers of the Constitution made it very
clear that s.51(xxvi) was specifically to avoid any problems with
International law as they were aware that International law cannot
override constitutional provisions.
While it is a bit complicated to explain in this response you
would in my view have a better option to try to rely upon the European
Union’s Human Rights provisions provided it doesn’t conflict with
Commonwealth law, as it can only be applied as a complimentary
legislation. Again, to explain this is too lengthy for this response.
I am well aware that so to say various Federal government and also
the courts couldn’t give a hood about what is constitutionally
appropriate where it doesn’t serve their purposes, but still we need
to pursue matters within the context of the constitution. The
constitution doesn’t belong to the government or the courts but
belongs to the people!
HANSARD 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record
of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary
not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above
suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the
Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles
embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record
of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties
which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal
government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of
political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to
achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A
charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this
Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new
charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna
Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of
nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of
the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the
peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the
barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be
given by the people of Australia to themselves.
This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to
I can understand the utter frustration you and others may endure
in your fight for JUSTICE but try to channel it through the right
processes and base your arguments upon what is constitutionally viable
and then I suggest you recommence whatever you pursue.
If for example you were to pursue the unconstitutionality of the
Northern Territory Intervention that it should also be applied
otherwise to other Aboriginals including lawyers who are living in
cities like Melbourne and Sydney, then you might get far more
attention as to have this unconstitutional legislation defeated. Do
you really think lawyers would want to be dispossessed of their rights
of property, etc, they more then likely may join your cause! Once you
succeed in that regard then you can build upon this succeed to tackle
Mr g. H. Schorel-Hlavka
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, GUARDIAN
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
***@office-of-the-guardian.com (constitutional matters only)
"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI®
series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!
"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER
SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .
From: chas x <***@gmail.com>
To: ***@aph.gov.au; ***@aph.gov.au;
***@aph.gov.au; ***@aph.gov.au; ***@aph.gov.au;
Sent: Thu, 15 October, 2009 12:55:43 PM
Subject: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial
discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed
near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
This email contains snippet of how the Australian Human Rights
1. conspire to pervert the Australian de facto Bill of Rights,
Australian Human Rights [sic] (and Equal Opportunity Commission) Act
(You will note that the Senate Committee for constitution and
legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin have removed the Equal
Opportunity part, since our exposing their unlawful discrimination);
2. covering up for their mates in the field of public health:
protected species if you are white and have friends who can pervert
3. give false and inadequate information: Notice how Ms Jane
Thomson refuses to deal with human rights issues of healthcare as a
separation from unlawful discrimination (which becomes intertwined
when you consider the hippocratic oath); which is what they are paid
4. she then tries to patronise us with the "you didnt mention your
race", which may be true but it was Burt who mentioned it initially.
5, This is the reason why you NEVER EVER allow the Australian
Judiciary anywhere near the Bill of Rights, not least since M142 Pham
vs French & ors, their abuse of discretionary powers is legendary that
Kirby J called the High Court racist....arbitrary and prejudicial
extra-judicial determination of legal processes and abuse of the legal
principal.....Fight the Federal Attorney General's attempt to give the
Bill of Rights to the Judiciary to handle; the Victorian Bill of
Rights shows that unelected judges are NOT fit to handle the Human
Rights legal aspects.
6. further complaints to the Human Rights [sic] Commission
regarding Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired
by Barnett and Crossin (which have been emailed previously), and the
Victorian Medical Board's covering up for Mr Burt, will be filed.
(You will remember the 4 year old Aborigines girl who died after
being refused medical care by the Qld hospital)
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from
Corrupt, Racist White nation
Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
7. there are subtle and not so subtle (if you know what to look
for) institutional, systemic unlawful racial discrimination, and human
rights violations, to health, to education, to employment, as
enshrined in ICCPR and ICERD and enforced/able under HREOCA1986;
8. Its time for the International Criminal Court to look at abuse
of the legal system and legal principles from the Australian Judiciary
and system and parliament, in perverting justice and conspiring to
cause injury, arbitrary extra-judicial decisions, under the Crimes
against Humanity clause in the Rome statutes of the ICC.
9. Remember that HREOCA1986 is as close to common law as you can
get whilst implementing ICCPR and ICERD, the 2 human rights treaties;
10. Les Malezer (Aborigines "leader" and recipient of Human Rights
Medal 2008) was asked to enquire about racial discrimination in Geneva
at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. After having
arrived back in Australia, Les Malezer has gone silent and refusing to
return phone calls; it seems Robbie Thorpe is correct that these black
"leaders" get fat in selling out their own people.
11. Robbie Thorpe and I will file a High Court challenge to the
australian Human rights [sic] commission's abuse of HREOCA1986 46PO as
a tool to violate ICCPR article 14.1, to coincide with
STOP TOXIC RACISM
Richard Downs and Harry Nelson Indigenous Speaking Tour In
PROTEST MARCH – Friday 16 October 2009 @10:00 am
@184 Gertrude Street Fitzroy-
March to Parliament
12. copy of complaint against Mr Burt follows:
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: chas x <***@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against
Mr Peter Burt [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: Complaints Info <***@humanrights.gov.au>
Dear Ms Jane Thomson,
I had asked you specifically to terminate this complaint, under
HREOCA1986 46PO, I had not asked you to determine it at all. And you
are lying that its NOT indirect racial discrimination as a threshold.
This is why i want this in the Courts as a precedence.
There will be a further complaint of racial discrimination against
the Medical Board of Victoria, that i will ask you to determine, and i
expect ALL correspondence to be in writing and on the Human Rights
Comissionn letterhead, even if the email is legal tender.
Right now I am expecting the termination papers as required by law
against Mr Burt.
I will send this to the Attorneys General and the PM's office, for
public record. Feel free to publish it widely
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Complaints Info
Dear Mr Pham
I refer to your email complaint received on 7 October 2009 in
which you raised concerns about the actions of a medical specialist Mr
Peter Burt. You stated that you believe that his actions amounted to
This Commission can look into complaints of discrimination
under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) in specific areas of
public life including in the provision of a service. Race
discrimination may occur where a person is treated less favourably
than another person in the same or similar circumstances and the
reason for that less favourable treatment is the person’s race.
In order to support a complaint of race discrimination, it is
not enough for a person to show that he or she is from a particular
racial background and has suffered some sort of unfair treatment. He
or she must show that the unfair treatment was based on or linked to
his or her race in one of the areas covered under the RDA.
While I appreciate that you believe that Mr Burt refused to
provide you with his service because of your race, you have not
clearly set out how the actions or behaviour of Mr Burt was linked to
your race. You state that Mr Burt accused you of "playing the race
card" however you have not stated why you believe that the reason he
treated you the way he did was because of your race. You have also not
stated what racial background you are from.
If you believe you have further information which would
support that Mr Burt's actions occurred because of your race then the
Commission would be happy to consider this information.
The Office of the Health Services Commissioner may be a more
appropriate body to deal with this complaint as it can take complaints
about the actions of doctors generally. Its website is:
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/hsc/. Ph. 1800 136 066.
If you would like to discuss this email or would like any
further information about our laws please contact me on 1300 656 419.
Complaint Information Officer
Complaint Handling Section
From: chas x [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 4:06 PM
To: Complaints Info
Subject: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against
Mr Peter Burt
Dear Australian Human Rights Commission,
Attached is the complaint against Mr Peter Burt. Please have
the President terminate it immediately, as a matter of urgency and
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
WARNING: The information contained in this email may be
If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of
of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this
error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you
the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email,
with any attachments.
Unprofessional conduct and unlawful racial discrimination of Mr
Peter Burt Provider
1. I give notice of unprofessional conduct of Mr Peter Burt;
2. Mr Peter Burt wants me to make a complaint against him; I
am making a full formal complaint against Mr Burt’s unprofessional
3. Mr Burt wants me to accuse him of racial discrimination; I
am accusing Mr Burt of unlawful racial discrimination;
4. Mr Burt wants me to make the complaint public; I will make
the complaint very public;
5. Mr Burt wants me to make it personal; I will make it
6. Mr Burt freely admitted that my case was an emergency case;
7. On the 8th of July 2009, I presented at Mr Burt’s surgery;
8. I noticed his waiting room was full and busy;
9. I waited around for over one hour and 45 min to see Mr
10. In his office, I made an off the cuff remark, that more than
30 min wait was beyond tolerable;
11. Mr Burt then made some remarks about emergency surgeries at
12. I have contacts with many health professionals, and I know
sometimes professionals just say things to appease the patients; I
made another off the cuff question seeking how many surgeries he had
done, especially when Mr Burt was standing there in his pinstripe
13. Mr Burt then got all flustered and pulled in one of his
assistants, just to clarify his 7 “emergency surgeries”;
14. Mr Burt then accused me of playing the “race card”; which
means he was the one noticing race;
15. By this time, 10-15 min had passed and I was getting eager
to have the session over with;
16. Mr Burt then refused to carry through with the consultation,
citing he was “insulted and that (I) haven’t apologised”;
17. I am now accusing Mr Burt of racial discrimination, for lack
of duty of care, violation of his Hippocratic Oath and being a total
disgrace to the memory of Dr Fred Hollows;
18. Mr Burt refused to see an emergency patient, in violation of
all professional codes of conduct; Mr Burt noted that I had bleeding
at the back of the eyes;
19. Mr Burt then fluffed me off to a junior physician, who had
to refer me to another specialist; I have no idea if I have been
20. Given my emergency status, I could have sustained serious or
life-threatening or long-term injury;
21. By passing me onto another physician, Mr Burt inconvenienced
another patient, which I had clearly indicated to Mr Burt;
22. Now I did mention to Mr Burt in front of his assistant that I
am willing to go through with the examination, if Mr Burt was
professional enough to act like a health professional;
23. Mr Burt obviously indicated that he wasn’t professional
enough and shouldn’t be allowed to rort public purse for his pinstripe
24. Especially if Mr Burt has a personal system of punishment for
25. Mr Burt then had the nerve to charge me for services in his
name and provider number;
26. I find that fraudulent; I had a suspicion that Mr Burt rushes
through many patients without providing proper care and attention in
order to rort the health system and/or medicare;
27. It may be that Mr Burt does not need Hippocratic Oath, but I
want to see if he has a duty to care;
28. Mr Burt will be sent this formal complaint, for his response;
29. I am now seeking a full and public apology; to be sent to
myself and posted in B3 size in front of his surgery: for lack of
professional conduct, and duty of care, unlawful racial
why little Johnnie Winston Coward Howard?
why must you cover up for your crooked white mates like crooked high
court judges French, Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ ?
Senate Enquiries: Whitewash
iWitness: Judicial Corruption Australia
Heres a Documentary on how these corrupt judges conspire to pervert
justice and fabricate documents, include the newly appointed Chief
Justice Robert Stenton French
The little Johnnie Winston Coward Howard neverending Magic Pudding
where feckin white pedophiles with the nerve to accuse blackfellas !!!
Crooked racist white Australia ^^