ISSUE: 20170815 - Re 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER Re CITIZENSHIP remained unchallenged

in 2 successful appeals, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Senator George Brandis, Attorney-General 15-8-2017

senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Sir,
I understand that the commonwealth will be and./or already has instituted legal proceedings
before the High Court of Australia in the matter of Mr Barnaby Joyce as to his validity to be a
Member of Parliament. I request that the Commonwealth will support me to become an
intervener in the matter and it pays all travel, overnight and court and other cost for me to do so.
As a senior citizen on an age pension it is obviously beyond my financial capacity to fund such
cost, neither should I have to either!
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. HIGGINS: QUOTE
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
I also earlier today wrote to Senator McKims office that I view the senate ought to hold an
urgent Senate Committee hearing so it can deal with the citizenship issue. Again due my limited
financial ability, such sitting can be held in Melbourne or otherwise the committee provides for
all my associated cost to be paid to appear before it in Canberra.
On 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg, with consent of the
Commonwealth legal representatives directed that the section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was to be placed before the High court of
Australia for the court to determine this matter. However the prosecutor failed to do so. On 4
August 2005 the magistrates Court of Victoria At Heidelberg upheld my submission that the
commonwealth couldnt rely upon averment in that Commonwealth law cannot interfere with
State Courts legal procedures. Counsel for the Commonwealth unsuccessfully objected to this
but the magistrates court of Victoria At Heidelberg directed that the Commonwealth was to file
and serve all documents it sought to rely upon in regard of charges relation to the 2001 and 2004
federal elections FAILING TO VOTE. Counsel then submitted that this would be truckloads of
documents upon which the magistrate made clear that this was a matter between the parties.
Subsequently the matter came before another magistrate on 16 and 17 November 2005 which
magistrate ignored rights I had obtained and convicted me on both charges. I then lodged appeals
in the County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 which also relied upon
the above mentioned Form 68 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS. The court set
aside both convictions and noted that the Commonwealth didnt present any evidence. This
underlining that averment couldnt have been relied upon by the Commonwealth.
No appeals were lodged by the Commonwealth against those orders.
As such, I am entitled to the benefits of the successful appeals. The Commonwealth had the
opportunity to challenge my written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) which
extensively did also set out the issue of citizenship. As such there can be no question about it
that the Commonwealth didnt seek to challenge this issue when it had the opportunity to do so.

p1 15-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
It cannot in my view, now belatedly seek the High Court of Australia to somehow deal with the
matters and so undermine me from the benefits of the court decisions I had.
In my view that numerous problems that have arisen since 19 July 2006 could had been
avoided had the Commonwealth having lost both appeals had bothered, as I often
recommended, to consider what I had set out.
In my view Mr Barnaby Joyce (and many others) would never have faced the current dilemma
had the Commonwealth cooperated with me in addressing matters, and likely most if not all other
persons whos rights to sit in the federal parliament were placed in question.
My book published on 30 September 2003 did set out matters comprehensively also. In fact it
also did then set out why Pauline Hanson of One Nation was wrongly convicted, and the
Queensland Criminal court of appeal precisely relied upon this issue to overturn the convictions
subsequently in November 2003.
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-
In my view it is unfair to those persons who have been successful in elections to be then denied
remaining to be a Member of Parliament because of the way so to say the Commonwealth of
Australia made an utter mess of the entire issue.
I was born in the Netherlands and migrated to Australia in 1971 and decided to naturalize in
1994. I since then stood for federal elections also. It was only this year that I became suspicious
that I might still hold Dutch nationality and in March began to request the Dutch Government
about this. We are now in August and all I have so far been getting is directions to different
departments and different websites but without confirmation/denial of any Dutch nationality.
Surely this is totally ridiculous and a better system should be in place.
At the Framers of the Constitution stated:
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
too much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. END QUOTE
And
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
p2 15-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE
And
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) Mr. DEAKIN: QUOTE
They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second
to none in the world. When the
question of a second chamber comes to be considered, they will assuredly not be satisfied to possess less
freedom. More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out with the explicit claim to
possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British empire to the same extent that
they are possessed and exercised by our fellow-countrymen in Great Britain itself. Australia is entitled
to absolute enfranchisement. In our union we attain political manhood and the stature of a full-grown
democracy. END QUOTE
And
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler
than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present
when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position
we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal
citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a
Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing unconstitutional,
nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal citizenship. END QUOTE
The High Court of Australia judicial powers doesnt include to amend or implied amend the
constitution! As such, any purported citizenship Act purporting to be a nationality is
unconstitutional. Neither exist there anything like a Commonwealth of Australia as a country
this as it is a POLITICAL UNION (Similar like the European Union).As the Framers of the
Constitution made clear DUAL CITIZENSHIP is what every State citizen holds.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section
of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to
aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each
person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. 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. That does not affect the operation
of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of
Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary
provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it
is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that
we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page
1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to
be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth
Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put
this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should be a citizen of the
Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
p3 15-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on. END QUOTE
And
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON. QUOTE
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament." END QUOTE
As such the term citizenship (44 Disqualification Any person who: (i) is under any
acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or) relates to a person who
actually resides in a foreign jurisdiction. In this case I understand for example that Mr Barnaby
Joyce never did so. As for any is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to
a foreign power one cannot be legally so if one is unaware of this and never pursued the benefits
otherwise entitled upon. If Mr Barnaby Joyce had commenced to register interest, such as joining
in New Zealand elections then he could have been deemed to have acknowledged his so called
New Zealand citizenship, but not where he was unaware of it.
As the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) defines New Zealand as a
State then regardless if New Zealand never actually joined it nevertheless remains to be a State
within the framework of the Commonwealth of Australia and entitled to join if it desired to do so
at any stage. Also, constitutionally Australians are and remain to be British Subjects as no
amendment was made neither can any s128 referendum achieve this to alter this status.
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) Mr. DEAKIN: QUOTE In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is
nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this constitution. END QUOTE
As such neither was the High Court of Australia correct in Sue v Hill as it was beyond its
jurisdictional powers to declare that by effluxion of time the Commonwealth of Australia became
an independent nation and had a Queen of Australia. As if in effluxion of time tenants will
become the landlords of the properties they reside in!
I can assure you there is a lot more to it all but for starters this may just give you the
understanding that Australian nationality cannot exist in itself because the Commonwealth of
Australia is a pure POLITICAL UNION and not some country.
The irony is that I without formal education in the English language and it neither being my
native language using my self-professed Crummy-English somehow can understand and
comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution better then all those politicians
and judges seem to do.
I look forwards to the Commonwealth providing legal assistance to me to prepare documentation
for the litigation, albeit I would represent myself as being a CONSTITUTIONALIST and
(retired) Professional Advocate I rather rely upon my own skills to present matters to a court as I
have so often done in the past very successfully. In my view any lawyer/judge who refers to
Australian citizenship as being a nationality should hand in his/her practice certificate and/or
resign from the bench. As I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth with its high paid
barristers in court I view the Commonwealth should stop fooling about and finally sort out the
mess it created and ensure that it works with me, not against me, to protect others from befalling
harm that could have been avoided. The deportation of British subjects might also be
unconstitutional in various ways, but that is an issue I will not go into now.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
p4 15-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati