Apparently it all began when Mrs Vorhauer resisted the confiscation of her $100 000 home, which was subsequently sold for $5000.
Mrs Vorhauer advises per letter of 5 Augut 2003
2. Note websites:
2.1 Northern Dialy Leader http://www.tamworth.yourguide.com.au
2, 27, 28 June, 12, 28 July 2003
2.2 High Court Website: Vorhauer v The Queen S305/2002, 26 March 2003
Adelaide Institute has received a letter from a
Mrs Florence Vorhauer who is currently serving
time in an Australian prison.
To our knowledge the matter has not been reported
in the national press.
The matters addressed in her letters give rise for concern.
However, if Mrs Vorhauer is a so-called 'crackpot', then
she should not be spending any time in prison
for expressing her views.
We may thus assume that the judge who sent her to
prison has judged her to be of sound mind.
We would be interested to hear from anyone who knows
more about this matter.
Mrs Florence Vorhauer
LMB 130 Australian Business Centre NSW 1811
13 July 2003
I am writing to give you some information that may help to stop the attacks of the Jewish newspapers on the Christian churches.
Last year the Federal Court of Australia ruled in Jones v Scully (2002 ,1080) that Jews, Muslims and Sikhs are a RACE in Australia.
This judgment brings these people under s.25 of the Constitution 1901, which says that the named races in this decision cannot be citizens of Australia and s.17 Australian Citizenship Act 1948 denies dual nationality status to citizens of Australia as did SUE v Hill (Heather Hill of One Nation) High Court judgment, which is law pursuant to s.25 Judiciary Act 1903, with regard to High Court decisions.
In matter No s. 194 of 2003 in the High Court with regard to s.40 Judiciary Act 1903 and a s.78B Judiciary Act 1903 Notice of a Constitutional Matter on No. s.194 of 2003, Lisa and I have put a Constitutional Challenge on the Jews ( 1/7/2002) being in our legal system.
As non-citizens of Australia, the Immigration Dept. will have no choice but to deport the people named by the Federal Court as a race in Australia, because they can never be naturalised citizens.
The Constitutional Challenge on the Jews is on the High Court web-site under New Transcripts Vorhauer v The Queen No s.305 of 2002 heard on 26/3/03. It will be noted that the top legal authorities present did not dispute my submissions.
* As you can see C J Gleeson gave a decision against me, but it was in contempt of the High Court's Coco v The Queen (1994) judgment which ordered a judicial officer to support orders with legislation, which Gleeson did not do and we lodged an appeal No s.194 of 2003 against this judgment.
The Queen has also been sent a Writ of Mandamus by Lisa and I to sack the Jews from the Judiciary, and she wrote a letter stating she had sent the Mandamus to the present Administrator for his attention.
I have felt that the Jews and their business activities have become a threat to life on earth, but in Australia at least they can be removed by importation.
The University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984) H.C. decision ruled that the Constitution has self-executing status, that does not require judicial order, so with the ruling of the Federal Court to support s.25 Constitution and s.17 Australian Citizenship Act 1948, no further judicial order is necessary to enact the deportation of the Jews and Muslims from Australia. Clause 5 preamble demands obedience, and s.24 AA (1) (a) 1914 Crimes Act says it is an act of treason not to obey the Constitution.
The Jewish Board of Deputies Diary and Resource Book (issued yearly as a diary) and available from Gold's bookshop in Bondi, makes it very plain Jews live in Australia as Jews, not dual nationals or a religion, and on either basis, cannot live in Australia and are excluded from Australia's public service because they cannot comply with the Schedule of the Constitution pursuant to s.34 (ii) and s.42 Constitution. To swear false oaths affirmations with regard to the Constitution is an act of treason (s.24 AA (i) (c) 1914 Crimes Act.
The government of the Jews is local councils, who exist in treason to the Constitution as they are not authorised. (A national referendum on 3/9/88 refused local government Constitutional recognition.
Councils regulate housing so that young couples are forced into bank debt which nets the Jews banks $10 billion+ profit per year.
Councils also poison water with chlorine and fluoride which are listed as toxic poisons in the Australian Poisons Register, a s.41 and s.30 Crimes Act 1900 indictment of poisoning town water and attempted murder, because written permission does not exist for this poisoning. This crime is not removed by time, and applies to all councillors Australia-wide.
Chlorine removes oxygen from water and from our 90% water body mass. All prescription drugs for sickness caused by lack of blood oxygen are listed in the Australian Poisons Register also. This poisonous cocktail goes into oceans and rivers, as well as a high load of nutrients from urine and liquid faeces which cannot be filtered out by present sewerage treatments methods.
In this poisonous/high nutrient /high salt (urine, chlorine, fluorine are all toxic salts) blue green algae thrive. River water becomes toxic to animals, and irrigation water for farms renders land saline and infertile. Fluorine used by councils is the toxic by-products of aluminium smelting. Fluorine used by councils is the by-product of aluminium smelting, and has other poisonous impurities as well. Fluorine is the basis of neurolyptic drugs used on the mentally ill, which attacks the nervous system, and renders men impotent and infertile. Fluorine can also cause docility, but in a lot of people it causes aggressive and violent behaviour.
The healthy alternative is the use of food grade hydrogen peroxide which si liquid oxygen to purify water. We would be so healthy the doctors and multi-national synthetic prescription drug poisoners would go broke, and this is the reason why councils don't use liquid oxygen.
The Jews manufacture of synthetics such as plastic from fossil fuels (coal and oil) air and water, is stopping the recycling process of the world's air and water, causing world-wide droughts and melting of the poles to make up for the loss. The Jewish-controlled UN banned hemp because plastics and synthetics could not compete with it. Millions of unemployed tropical hep farmers became their slaves in their "multinational" factories.
This litany of Jewish manipulated control of the world is a genocidal threat to the Christian nations.
The solutions are so simple, for Australia: 1. Deport races; 2. Decriminalise hemp; 3 . Prosecute councillors with a 74A Supreme Court prosecutor's summons; 4. Put liquid oxygen in town water supplies.
S.100 of the Australian Constitution forbids charging for water and to do so is treason (s.24AA (1) (c) 1914 Crimes Act).
The G.S.T. is also treason in Australia because s.96 Constitution says trading is to be free
As I am in jail I can no longer do anything much so hope you will be able to use this information so you can save the youth of Australia from the genocide that they are at present being subjected to.
Mrs F Vorhauer.
Mr Phillip Ruddock
Minister for Immigration Parliament House
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600
I wish to inform you of the JONES v SCULLY (2003 FCA 1080 decision that named Jews, Muslims and Sikhs as a race in Australia. S25 Constitution does not allow people who are a race citizenship in Australia, or to be counted in the population, and Clause 5, preamble demands obedience or it is treason (s.24AA(1)(a) 1914 Crimes Act. (These matters are raised on the High Court web-site VORHAUER v THE QUEEN (2003) No s 305 of 2002 heard 26/3/2003). It will be noted that the legal authorities present did not dispute my submissions in support of the dismissal.
In the University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984) judgment, the High Court ruled that the Constitution is a self-executing document that does not require judicial order to enact and s25 Judiciary Act 1903 says the High Court's judgments are law in Australia; Clause 5 preamble Constitution demands obedience or it is treason (s24 AA(1) (a) 1914 Crimes Act).
With the support of the judgments already made to support the self-executing status of s.25 Constitution as ruled by the High Court, I submit that no further judicial process is necessary to deport the Jews, Muslims and other races from Australia forthwith.
As races they can never comply with the Schedule of the Constitution pursuant to s.34 and s.42; so appeals could not be forthcoming as ordered by a self-executing Constitution that does not require judicial order to enact.
A s.78B Notice of a Constitutional Matter pursuant to s.78B Judiciary Act 1903 would be sufficient to remove appeals.
I tried to file a Writ of Mandamus supported by an Affidavit and a Draft Order Nisi on these matters, but it was refused filing by J Heydon on 3/62003 in the High Court.
I anticipated the hostility of the High Court to the Writ of Mandamus and sent the Draft Order Nisi to the Queen, who replied on 2/6/03 that the Writ of Mandamus had been sent to the Administrator of Australia for his attention.
In a letter dated 26/6/03 Kevin Dodson, Senior Adviser to the Governor-General said: "I am sorry to disappoint you, but neither the Queen nor the Administrator can become involved in a matter such as this."
The Constitution says the Governor-General's duties are to hire and fire the judiciary, so this letter is an obvious lie. High treason is obviously alive and thriving in Australia, and also free from prosecution or dismissal as ordered by the Constitution. I believe concern for national security demands immediate enactment of Constitutional law.
Mrs Florence Vorhauer
Sometimes I think it is wise to let go of things, and not to pursue things to the legal limits! Or am I just becoming old? - 'I gin to be aweary of the sun and wish the estate of the world were now undone' - something like that!
I am always wary about cases involving women who speak up, who are then treated like the dissenters who were labelled 'witches', then burned at the stake.
Have we reached this situation with Mrs Verhauer who is obviously fearless in pursuing the expression of her world view, her beliefs?
Yet I cannot quite work out what Mrs Vorhauer has done to be put in prison. Anyone who knows anything about the case, please advise.
It has always been my contention that the Australian Racial Discrimination Act has given Australia a racist constitution.
It confers upon Jews, a religious group and not a racial group, the status of race, thereby following Adolf Hitler's National Socialist's folly of turning a religious category into a racist category.
The following letter is of interest here.
It is from the solicitor involved in our 19 May 2003 Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, against the Summary Judgment made on 17 September 2002, by a single judge in favour of Australia's leading Zionist and racist, president of Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Mr Jeremy Jones.
"11 July 2003
Dear Dr Toben,
RE: TOBEN V JONES Federal Court of Australia - JUDGEMENT (27 June 2003)
I have received a copy of the judgement outlining the failure of our appeal to the Federal Court. Below is a brief summary of the decisions of the presiding justices Carr J, Kiefel J & Allsop JJ.
1.) Constitutional validity of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 had previously been found to be constitutionally valid by the High Court; however Part IIA was not part of the Act at this time.
All Justices found Part IIA to be constitutionally valid as it was within the external affairs power conferred by the Constitution (s.51(xxix)), considering the section 'appropriate and adapted' to implementing the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination to which Australia is a party.
2.) Causal connection required between particular act alleged to be unlawful, and race, colour or national or ethnic origin of another person Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
All Justices found that there were associative connections of certain phrases used within the publication (and in the absence of any explanation) which were likely to offend Jews and comments published because of the ethnic origins (the Jewishness) of the relevant group, and therefore fulfilling the requirements of Section 18C (an act reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person/group of people due to their race, colour or national or ethnic origin).
3.) Whether the relevant act of publication was done reasonably and in good faith in the course of a discussion or debate made or held for any 'genuine academic purpose' or 'genuine purpose in the public interest' within section 18D(b) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
All Justices found that on the balance of probabilities, the publication was not reasonably, for any genuine academic purpose or other genuine purpose in the public interest, and was without any evidence of good faith.
Please contact my office if you have any inquiries.
Permit me to clarify a matter raised in the following comment from the above letter:
"All Justices found that there were associative connections of certain phrases used within the publication (and in the absence of any explanation) ...".
I decided that it would be a no-match situation were I to participate in any legal wrangling against a Senior Counsel, and my appeal to over 20 legal firms for help had fallen on deaf ears 'for fear of the Jews'.
I also had two precedents on which I based my decision not to contest the matter: David Irving and Olga Scully, both of whom thought that if they presented matters of fact, then they would have a chance to overcome their deficient arguments of matters of law.
Both Scully and Irving could not win for the simple reason that they could not overcome their legal deficiency, and a judge is bound to accept the legal guidance that the opponent in both instances offered to the bench.
Some judges do ask for more matters of fact in order to reach a balanced decision.
In the Irving matter, indeed, it was Justice Gray who stated quite clearly that Irving had not offered him THE RUDOLF REPORT.
This report is now the benchmark for 'Holocaust' believers to jump over.
It is the contents of The Rudolf Report that enables Revisionists rationally to conclude with Professor Arthur Butz, Willis Carto, Dr Robert Faurisson, et al, that the 'Holocaust', presented in the media as common knowledge, is a lie.
Anyone who wishes to believe in the 'Holocaust' is, of course free to do just that.
However, this belief will not be based on scientific evidence and will thus have little credibility.
The Revisionists who base their beliefs on The Rudolf Report have a substantial argument. The Rudolf Report's conclusions remain sound and to date have not been challenged in any substantial way.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute