1

Premier Kristina Keneally 7-2-2011

<thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>
5 .
Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
* Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue C/o peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au
* Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com>
PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745
10 .
Re: State Land tax - etc
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Kristina,
15 your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my
31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
QUOTE
CMU10-16940
13 September 2010
20 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.
25 As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon
Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.
You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.
Yours sincerely
David Swain
30 for Director General
END QUOTE
.
Regretfully since then despite further subsequent correspondences nothing was heard about it
other then that I have become aware that Peter Geffroy of State Revenue Office appears to
35 disregard the proper ‘consideration” and persist with assessments irrespective of the issue that
State parliaments since 1910 have no constitutionally permissible legislative powers as to raise
land taxes since it became an exclusive federal power in 1910.
.
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
40 of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking
consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient
in law.
END QUOTE
45 .
It appears to me that “You can be sure your letter will receive close consideration.” then must
imply that before the State Revenue Office can pursue any assessment as to properties owned by
the Pincevic’s then such due and proper consideration is given in regard of if the State does or
doesn’t have any constitutionally permissible land tax legislative powers.
50 In all fairness to the Pincevi’s the issue was raised by me way back on 31 August 2010 well
before the State Revenue Office purportedly issued its client ID 41494706 (correspondence ID
7-2-2011 Page 1 Re: State Land tax - etc
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® Our name is our motto!
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 2

1539644953) & ID 4345407 (correspondence ID 1539640597) Land Tax Assessment Notices

and as such the Pincevic’as are entitled to be given a proper explanation what was actually
“considered’ and if the issue of the lack of legislative powers regarding State Land Taxes was not
considered then the Land Tax Assessment Notice would fail as it omitted proper consideration of
5 all relevant issues.
.
I have obtained a copy of a 13 January 2011 correspondence from the Office of state Revenue
and contrary to your office response stating “You can be sure your letter will receive close
consideration.” Nothing in the correspondence seems to me even remotely refer to the issues
10 raised in my n31 August 2010 and further correspondences.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear all and any taxes unconstitutionally extracted from
a tax payer must be refunded. Hence, any State land Taxes the State of NSW so far charged and
had paid from the Pincevic’s should be refunded.
.
15 The State of NSW also should be aware that if this case were to go for litigation in the courts
then where the courts to uphold the claim that the States since 1910 no longer had legislative
powers to apply land taxes then this will be a considerable billion dollar issue. Do you really
desire to have this case to be litigated as such?
.
20 Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003
QUOTE
Constitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land.
END QUOTE
.
25 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi -
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
30 makers[51].
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
35 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
40 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
45 Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
50 work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
55 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
7-2-2011 Page 2 Re: State Land tax - etc
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® Our name is our motto!
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 3

Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
5 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
10 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
.
15 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
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
20 principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
25 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.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
30 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
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
35 rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
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.
40 No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
END QUOTE
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
.
45 Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
50 criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
It is therefore clear that when the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to Land Taxes in
55 1910 then that so to say spelled the end of the States to legislate as such. The fact that the
Commonwealth abolished land taxes in 1952 itself didn’t alter the fact that it had become an
“exclusive” Commonwealth legislative power. As such the 1956 State land Taxes legislation and
any subsequent amendments to it all are and remain to be unconstitutional.
.
60 Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
7-2-2011 Page 3 Re: State Land tax - etc
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® Our name is our motto!
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 4

The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this
power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
5 exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
.
15 The Framers of the Constitution also embedded the legal principle in the constitution (out of
which within s.106 the States were created from the colonies):
.
Hansard 2-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
20 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
.
Obviously both Mr Robert Pincevic and his father Mr Anton Pincevic have urged me to follow
25 up the matter in view that your Department is still pestering them about State land taxes.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on
certain constitutional and other legal issues my issue is foremost what is constitutionally
appropriate and for this directed myself to you. I intend to publish a copy of this correspondence
on the Internet so that you might be aware that I will disclose details to others so they may seek
30 to use it to their advantage to combat any unconstitutional State land tax.
I have provided the email address of Mr Robert Pincevic also (above) so you can also respond
to him and his father directly.
.
For the above I duo urge you to ensure that the State Land Tax Office immediately withdraw all
35 and any Assessment notices and do consider the issue of constitutional validity of State land
taxes and to give the Pincevic’s a proper response if it holds the legislation to be valid or not and
upon what “consideration”. After all litigation may attract more attention to other land tax
assessed land holders then the State may desire, in particular where it were to end up being an
adverse decision to the State of NSW.
40 .
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.

45 Our name is our motto!

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

7-2-2011 Page 4 Re: State Land tax - etc

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® Our name is our motto!
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com