WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Premier Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland 13-11-2009

thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au
5 .
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Re: Traveston Dam –State v Commonwealth powers - etc

10 Cc; Mr Peter Garrett Minister (Commonwealth of Australia) Peter.Garrett.MP@aph.gov.au

Narelle McCarthy Sunhine Coast Environment Council Inc. info@scec.org.au
Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Bob Brown Senator senator.bob.brown@aph.gov.au
.
15 Anna,
To give you a lead in as to what I am on about, in December 2008 Mr Francis James
Colosimo requested me to assist in litigation that had been going on for years, involving about 20
lawyers as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Consultant. Subsequently despite 6 CONTEMPT
hearing having been held against Mr Francis James Colosimo I was able to show to the trial
20 judge that not only was Mr Francis James Colosimo innocent of any wrong doing, but the
lawyers had litigated in the wrong venue, etc. Subsequently I also established that Her Honour
Harbison J in none of the 6 hearings for CONTEMPT had even bothered to formally charge Mr
Francis James Colosimo. Her Honour Harbison J did order a PERMANENT STAY of the
proceedings on 16 March 2009. What the point is that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view
25 matters differently then lawyers and am not corrupted in my views how the law applies.
.
Now let’s consider the Peter Garrett decision, the first obvious question that is to be asked is why
on earth was the Commonwealth involved in this matter?
Constitutionally either the Commonwealth or the States have legislative powers but not both!
30 I will refrain from quoting the Framers of the Constitution in this correspondence but were you
be interested to explore this matter further then my presentation will rest upon what is
constitutionally applicable.
Again, within which constitutional powers did Minister Peter Garrett make his decision?
It appears to me, at least of the limited material I read in the media that it was not a decision
35 within s.100 of the (federal) constitution. Still before I exclude this section to be applicable I
require to have all relevant details to the submissions and the decision. We therefore may have
that the minister may have relied, I assume more then likely, upon the Tasmania Dam case.
Commonwealth v. Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case) 158 CLR 1, 46 ALR 625
(http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?DocID=JUD%2F158CLR1%2F00007)
40 .
The problem with that case is as I have previously already extensively canvassed in my
published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal
issues that it was so to say an ill conceived decision where the High Court of Australia failed to
be aware of all relevant details and I have no doubt that if the same case were to be re-litigated
45 upon what I would present the previous decision would be overruled.
p1 13-11-2009
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 I do not intend to go into all the legal details in this correspondence as I can do so in a
proper set out.
.
5 As you may be aware the Commonwealth of Australia declares/defines citizenship but ask
yourself or any lawyer for that matter within which constitutional powers has the Commonwealth
the legislative powers for this? It simply doesn’t have it as the Framers of the constitution
specifically denied such legislative powers.
Let’s take another issue. Let any of your lawyers point out where in the federal constitution the
10 Commonwealth has legislative powers to declare the nationality of any child born within the
Commonwealth of Australia? It simply has no such legislative power! The Commonwealth can
“naturalize” aliens but it cannot declare the nationality of anyone born within the Commonwealth
of Australia, and my published books have canvassed this extensively. And numerous other
constitutional issues I canvassed in my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
15 that are misunderstood by lawyers (including constitutional lawyers). As such, whatever team of
lawyers or constitutional lawyers you may seek to rely upon if none of them ever understood this
then little wonder they neither could manage the Dam case appropriately.
.
That is why such as in the Mr Francis James Colosimo case I can expose the utter stupidity of
20 lawyers to have for years litigated in the wrong venue without any realising this and against an
innocent man, as was in writing acknowledged by the other party even before all the litigation
commenced! You may get it I am certainly not a lawyer but self-educated
CONSTITUTIONALIST who as a Attorney or otherwise assist people in their litigation FREE
OF CHARGE!
25 .
My previous email to you through your website was:
QUOTE 13-11-2009 EMAIL
Anna Bligh, Premier Queensland
.
30 as a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST who has in the past comprehensively defeated
the Commonwealth of Australia on constitutionally issues it appears to me that the decision
of Peter Garrett, federal Minister, has no constitutional validity, at least to the reports I read
about the grounds of his decision.
As Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and
35 other legal issues I have exposed numerous constitutional issues.
.
If you can provide we with copies of the material governing the proposed dam, the
submissions by the Queensland Government and the decision of Peter Garrett and within
which constitutional powers he professed to have made his decision I would FREE OF
40 CHARGE be willing to provide a comprehensive set out as to my views and you can then
submit it to your legal advisors or whatever to consider what I have set out.
.
Keep in mind that 5 weeks prior to the Court of Criminal Appeal handing down its Pauline
Hanson decision I had published already on 30 September 2003:
45 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0
This book did set out precisely the grounds the court subsequently relied upon to overturn
the convictions.
50 Likewise I urged the SA government to appeal upon constitutional grounds the toxic waste
ruling and it did subsequently and succeeded in its appeal.
p2 13-11-2009
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 .
Any assistance I were to provide is not as to take sides with any party but merely as I am
concerned that the Commonwealth of Australia has unconstitutionally interfered with the
rights of the States (in this case Queensland) as to manage its own internal affairs.
5 .
I would prefer that material is provided to me both in hard copy (via mail) and
electronically as because I do not charge I seek to avoid incurring cost in printing, etc.
.
Also, it would be advisable that any formal email are forwarded to schorel-
10 hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com and marked in the subject heading as PROPOSED DAM
ISSUES.
.
A formal letter will also be forwarded regarding this request.
.
15 Awaiting your response and cooperation
.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
20 .
13-11-2009

END QUOTE 13-11-2009 EMAIL

.
25 My issue is not if the dam is environmental friendly or not as that is not relevant to me as all I am
on about is what the (federal) constitution is about and therefore if the decision of Peter Garrett is
beyond constitutional powers then the following should be considered:
.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
30 "Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief
Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of
power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to
disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but
such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not
35 valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio."
(See also Folder 28 re Residual Assco Group v Spalvins & Ors A5/2000 (11 May 2000) High
Court of Australia Transcripts)
.
40 The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
45 which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
And
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes
the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be
in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
50 This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
p3 13-11-2009
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
5 no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede
any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
10 Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
.
If any of your legal advisors were to argue that somehow s.51(xxix) “external affairs” was to
apply then I view they better hand back any law decree they have because they obviously do not
15 understand the true meaning of this subsection and how it is applicable
.
As to s.51(1) this would only relate to s.100 and I didn’t notice any such kind of reference in the
articles I read in the media.
.
20 Now surely, you ought to have your legal advisors first checking the legal basis upon which the
Commonwealth can interfere with State legislative powers? The commonwealth may fancy to
make decisions in matters it has no legislative powers but I view if this kind of system were to be
tolerated then why have a constitution at all? The constitution was created to divide the
legislative powers of States and the Commonwealth and as such unless there was an referendum
25 that upheld an amendment to the constitution to give the commonwealth legislative powers that
belonged to the States I for one cannot accept that the Peter Garrett decision appears to be
constitutionally valid. Hence the State of Queensland can proceed with the dam project if it
wishes to do so, at least upon the details so far known to me.
.
30 Again, for a more comprehensive and details analysis I would require all relevant details,
including details about the river in issue, etc.
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

35

p4 13-11-2009
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com