ISSUE: 20170816 - Re 78B NOTICE, Re CITIZENSHIP, Re Legislative powers, etc & the constitution

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

Within the context of the constitution Section 44 citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with
nationality but is where a person resides. The mere fact that the commonwealth of Australia
legislated for the Citizenship Act in 1948 itself doesnt mean it is constitutionally valid.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution. END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid. END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the
subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken
into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the
law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a
common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically
infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack
each other's laws. END QUOTE

QUOTE QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Attorney General 19-11-2002
Victoria
Fax 9651 0577 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
URGENT
Sir/Madam
Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have as to be able to
obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it was stated;

As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth, not the States. You
indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you are an Australian citizen.

This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil Branch of the
Department of Justice.

Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of the High Court of
Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isnt in the Constitution, then the Commonwealth had no
legislative powers.

p1 16-8-2017 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
RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this is clearly
unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must deal with State Citizenship!

Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of Victoria to the
Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution, I view, there never was and still is
no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to determine State or any other citizenship!
END QUOTE

It ought to be clear that if a state doesnt provide for State citizenship then a person can neither
obtain Australian citizenship being the political status to vote in state/federal elections.
QUOTE
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

1. The Defendant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA gives notice that the

proceedings involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
within the meaning of section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
37. That I seek this Court to adjourn these proceedings and to place before the HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA a CASE STATED as to have the High Court of Australia to first determine the following
matters;

(i) Can a person obtain Australian citizenship without first obtaining State citizenship (Quasi
States being Territories included)? If so, then by which constitutional valid manner?

(ii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to define citizenship? If so;
(a) under which provision? And
(b) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(c) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?

(iii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to declare and/or grant citizenship? If so,
(d) under which provision? And
(e) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(f) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?

(iv) Does the Commonwealth have the constitutional powers to determine the rights of a resident in a
State to obtain citizenship of such State? If so, by which constitutional powers?
END QUOTE

This was part of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS that was filed and
served upon all Attorney-Generals and which the magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Victoria
by consent ordered on 4 December 2002 to be determined by the High Court of Australia. In
view that I objected to the issue of Australian citizenship being a purported nationality.
The onus was on the prosecutor, the Commonwealth of Australia to place the matter before the
High Court of Australia. The Commonwealth however failed to do so. It was to me no wonder
that the Commonwealth was bound to be defeated comprehensively in both appeals on 19 July
2006, where it had blatantly disregarded the orders of the magistrate of 4 December 2002.
However, this is too little avail to those persons who now have their constitutional validity of
being a Member of Parliament placed in jeopardy.
Those who are interested in finding out what was before the County Court of Victoria
exercising federal jurisdiction in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka can simply download the
documentation from the following links;
s78B NOTICE subject to an order of 4-12-2002 to be heard by the High Court of Australia
The document can be downloaded from
https://www.scribd.com/document/356346334/FORM69-78B-2signed-Re-Citizenship

060719gh-address-part 1-v7=149p of the successful appeals Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
The document can be downloaded from
p2 16-8-2017 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
https://www.scribd.com/document/356346354/060719gh-address-part-1-v7-149p

060719gh-address-part 2-v7=134p of the successful appeals Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
The document can be downloaded from
https://www.scribd.com/document/356346362/060719gh-address-part-2-v7-134p

060719gh-address-part 3-v7=126p of the successful appeals Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
The document can be downloaded from
https://www.scribd.com/document/356346365/060719gh-address-part-3-v7-126p

Those politicians who ignored my writings may now/later regret having done so, where I
repeatedly wrote about it in previous PRESS RELEASES.
As with the killing in Bourke street mall that I warned about on 15 July 2016 and 21 December
2016 that I urged to have bollards, etc, to be placed and specifically referred to BOURKE
STREET MALL both the State and Federal politicians couldnt give a darn and well we ended
up on 20 January 2017 with 6 dead and more than 2 dozen injured, and my writings are now
before the coroners Court.
Politicians should have learned a lesson that they may ignore my writings and may detest my
self-professed Crummy-English but in the end doing so can be fatal to their careers.
The same with the compulsory voting the Commonwealth simply lacks the constitutional
legislative powers for this, and while I may vote if I hold there is a worthy candidate standing I at
times will not do so and the Commonwealth cannot ever take me on about this again because it
lost both appeals. One has to ask is; How can a Dutch born man without any education in the
English language with his self-professed Crummy-English defeat the Commonwealth in
litigation so comprehensively? The answer is that because I had to learn the English words I
started to realise that what the parliament had legislated for was not what constitutionally was
permissible. But those going to law schools, etc, would unlikely know better because they grew
up so to say to call the colour white black but meaning it to be white. The entire purported
Australia Act 1986 (UK) and/or (Cth) is utter and sheer nonsense. Just wait and the same will
soon enough come out also.
When I was representing Mr Colosimo I discovered that more than 20 lawyers had been involved
in the cases and he had been represented by a barrister and yet I turned it all around proving they
were all wrong. This is because they all assumed things wrongly rather than to consider the plain
facts, and so I succeeded in the appeal. Those who criticise my self-professed Crummy-English
better consider that they might by ignoring the facts one day become undone.
How absurd that parliamentarians/judges dont even understand/comprehend there is no such
thing as a country called Commonwealth of Australia. Try to imagine is there such a thing as
a country called European Union? How often would you come across a person claiming to
come from a country called European Union and their nationality is being a European
Unionist? Well like it or not the same with the Commonwealth of Australia and the High
Court of Australia has absolutely no judicial powers to twist and infringe upon the constitution.
My published books are setting out these and numerous other constitutional issues and they are
with the National Library in Canberra also.
So many Members of Parliament are lawyers and yet to me appear to be illiterate when it comes
to understanding/comprehending the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Let parliamentarians show some sort of intelligence and say enough is enough, and let us
properly investigate matters as if Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. turns out to be right in other
issues also then we better try to avoid another gigantic disaster. It is your call!
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!)

p3 16-8-2017 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