1

President J. Donald Trump 8-2-2017

info@mail.whitehouse.gov
5
Ref: EXECUTIVE ORDER 27-1-2017 PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

Sir,
As a self-educated constitutionalist in the commonwealth of Australia recognizing that many
10 parts of the commonwealth of Australia constitution act 1900 (UK) was included on what the
US constitution contained with its Amendments I therefore am very much interested in what is
going on regarding your Presidential Executive Orders currently before the courts. Save to say
that I have read and consider the judgment in Louhghalam v. Trump. Civ. No 17-10154-NMG,
Order 11 (D.Mass. Fed. 3.2017) and aware of the more than 120 year standing decision of the
15 Privy Council that held in the Ah toy case that any state is entitled to prohibit an alien to enter
this state. I am also aware of the case: 17-35105, 02/05/2017, ID: 103002855, DktEntry: 16
STATE OF WASHINGTON: STATE OFMINNESOTA.
I recall reading a court decision regarding Detroit, where the Court held that because of possible
20 future earnings of taxes the State was allowed to remove owners of their properties to enable a
company to setup business. It was however that in the end this company decided not to set up
business in Detroit and as such this may underlines that the courts speculative illusionary views
about future taxes could undermine the rights of the party against whom it issues its orders.
I view the Courts are not there to apply their own personal motives/agenda but are there to rule to
25 the confines of the constitution and legislation enacted within it.
In my view Louhghalam v. Trump referred to above was correctly decided.
Unlike the USA in the Commonwealth of Australia we do have Hansard records as to what was
debated by the Framers of the Constitution that resulted in the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as well as limited High Court of Australia judgment quotations, and
30 I view it appropriate to quote some statements below and then explain how this is relevant to
your matters.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
35
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
40 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte

Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
45 Constitutional interpretation

1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
p1 8-2-2017 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
 2
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
5 authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
10 END QUOTE

Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) KIRBY J. :

A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power where none exists.
15 Humphreys Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
QUOTE
More to the same effect appears in the debates, which were long and thorough and
contain nothing to the contrary. While the general rule precludes the use of these debates to
explain the meaning of the words of the statute, they may be considered as reflecting light upon its
20 general purposes and the evils which it sought to remedy. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co.,
283 U.S. 643, 650 , 51 S.Ct. 587, 79 A.L.R. 1191
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
25 Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
30 .
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
35 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
40 exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

45 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

50 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
55 rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
60 appreciated by the people.
p2 8-2-2017 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
 3
END QUOTE

What this means is that the Courts must first of all interpret the meaning of the constitution not
to how they may personally desire a certain outcome by backdoor manner but what the meaning
5 of the constitution (including Amendments) was for those who voted at the time on the
Constitution (so its subsequent Amendments).
The Framers of the Constitution in Australia recognizing there could be a problem to deny entry
to British nationals where the commonwealth of Australia was and still technically is under a
10 British constitution then provided for Subsection 51(xxvi) which specifically was designed to
enable the Parliament to provide legislation to deny British nationals entry based upon race,
nationality, etc.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:-

The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory
of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any
20 law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of its laws.

Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in
mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its citizens shall not be people of
25 alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those
150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act,
which I think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other
colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our shores the natives of India who
cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would
30 debar some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of
Australia. There you have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes
far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think if we took this
clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us.

Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by the Right Hon. Sir
35 Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would land us in greater difficulties than
anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to
define who is in future to be considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day
with what we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people of the
Commonwealth in this connexion.
40 END QUOTE

It is therefore clear that the constitution itself provides what is constitutionally permissible and
only legislation enacted within those provisions can be enforced.
45 It must be clear that the People of the Unites States of Ameruica at the time of the framing of the
US constitution had no perception about jihadist and other like groups. As such the powers
provided in the constitution must be read to the maximum of the Congress to legislate and the
maximum of the Government of the Day (the Administration) to be exercised in todays
contemporary world but to what was understood at the time of framing the constitution and
50 Amendments.
I am not aware that the current litigation is about the Presidential Executive order seeking to
expose the so called Honor killings (honour killings) but I view that even if this were to be
argued by some lawyers to conflict with the 1st amendment of Freedom of Religion the
following may assist to understand it would not be so:
55
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
p3 8-2-2017 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
 4
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the
greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
END QUOTE
5
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, since then, as is pointed out in a little handbook which my honorable friend lent me.
But the question for us to consider is whether a court like the Federal High Court or the Privy Council would
10 ever come to such a conclusion. One would think it highly improbable. The real question that may arise under
this Constitution is whether the Commonwealth can make a law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise
of any religion. I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that power
upon the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I think
we need scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, the
15 withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
20 Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
25 devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.

Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-

But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
30 character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

As such I view even the teaching of Jihad can be deemed a criminal offence if legislation forbids
this as it cannot be deemed that religious books are excluded from criminal provisions nor that so
35 called religious buildings used for this purpose then are at liberty to engage in teaching followers
to kill because the ascribe to a different religion or do not practice any religion at all.
Banning text books of religions to use content that may incite criminal conduct and/or seeks to
promote this should be the order of the day. It would not be a issue against a religion but for the
safety of the citizens.
40 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
45 government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
50 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
55 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE

p4 8-2-2017 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
 5
Likewise so the US Constitution and its Amendments were made for the protection of rights,
liberty and safety of American citizens and not for the devious nature some fanatics may desire
to perpetrate those rights and safety.
5 In my view it is correct to state it is not for the courts to second guess what the reasons of the
President might be to issue a Presidential Executive Order where the Courts would unlikely have
the running of classified information at hand. Presidential Executive orders, for so far within the
scope of the constitution and any legislation enacted within this must be left without attack and
or to in any way undermine the orders.
10 Interim orders must never be issues merely upon some illusion that might be presented by some
opponent as the courts must not deal fanciful with constitutional issues. It mazy obviously look at
what were the perceptions of the people at the time the constitution was framed and at the time of
each (relevant) Amendment. I did check the Amendment X that was referred to and personally
couldnt find anything in it that could be deemed to justifiably attack the Presidential Executive
15 Order now under attack.
As I alluded to above the Detroit issue where the illusion of possible taxation somehow (I view
wrongly) interfered with the rights of citizens. We now have reportedly a case that refers to
illusive further taxation and student enrolments but I view this is totally irrelevant to the issue.
20 After all if somehow the Commonwealth (Being the Trump Administration) can be prevented
willy nilly to govern merely because it might injure some person then well would that mean a
person getting upset reading an article about President Donald J Trump then would have a legal
standing to have the President removed from office merely on that basis? Surely this would be an
absurdity.
25 The States are left with the powers not granted to the Commonwealth (the USA) and as such the
Trump Administration as like any other Administration must be free to engage in governing
within constitutional and other legal limits on a federal level.
When I represented as a Professional Advocate Mr Francis James Colosimo (on appeal after his
barrister was so to say given marching orders) the first thing I did was object to the legal standing
30 of an opponent Barrister and his instructing solicitor. And well after some submissions hey were
ordered to leave the court room.
Legal standing must not be fanciful based on any hypothetical imaginary situation but must be
based upon real and factual issues for a court to decide upon.
In my view the issue of possible reduces State taxation or student enrolment never should be part
35 of seeking to attack a Presidential executive Order as ultimately how the state conduct its
financial affair remains to be within State constitution and legal provisions otherwise and not that
it could be used somehow to deny the Government of the Day (in this case the Trump
Administration of its rightful powers to deal with immigration/alien issues.
40 Each party has a role to play within the sphere of its legal authority and only by actual
invasion/interference and not perceived/illusion interferences/invasion as to the legal
entitlements of the other can a court adjudicate.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
45 QUOTE
Mr. HENRY: I would like to ask Mr. Barton what effect this would have on several Marine Boards and
Harbor Trusts of the colonies which are dependent for their revenues on tonnage rates. This clause, I see,
provides that no tonnage duty should be imposed except by Commonwealth. What position, I would like to
know, would the various Harbor Trusts and Marine Boards, which are dependent for a portion of their
50 revenue on these tonnage dues, occupy till the Federal Commonwealth has had time to legislate upon this
matter.

Mr. BARTON: If the tonnage dues are not an infringement upon the principles of intercolonial freetrade, I
take it that they would remain in force after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but if the State

p5 8-2-2017 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
 6
proposed to take in hand legislation on the subject, it would not be permitted to legislate on that subject
without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?

Mr. BARTON: Possibly the only trouble there would be, that a period of six months would elapse before
5 the Commonwealth Parliament was called together after it is established. So far as the tonnage dues,
mentioned by Mr. Henry, did not infringe upon the principles of intercolonial freedom of trade, there would
be no difficulty.

Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their meaning. In South
Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of purchase, and I can see that under the latter
10 portion of this clause there is considerable danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.

Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would not be taxed, but
the letting value would be taxed.

Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is the reversion upon
the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002] taxable, but the interest of the lessee in
15 the property would be taxable.

Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.

Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth to tax materials
for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails, machinery, engines, &c., for State
purposes, I would like to know whether such exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the
20 Federal Parliament have a right to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?

Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional Committee, and I think
my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted the members of the Finance Committee
upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:

Impose any tax on property

25 do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs would be
unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, meaning by that
property of any kind which is in hand, such as land within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to
Customs duties.

30 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in free?

Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which
I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
35 Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
END QUOTE

What this underlines is that regardless if the States may or may not have a financial disadvantage
in taxation as to its own operations it never can serve as an excuse to justify inroads in the federal
40 sphere. Clearly, as shown above the Commonwealth (US and/or Australia are both
Commonwealths) is entitled to exercise its constitutional powers as it deem fit and proper and
cannot be bogged down or otherwise obstructed to suit some State(s).
It may, albeit not relevant, be very well that a university may attract more students from other
countries where aspirant students gain the view that it would be much safer to enroll in the USA
45 because of strict policies. No court can make a hypothetical decision in that regard. The same
with other issues, which are claimed by the applicants.
I look forwards of your Administration keeping me informed about progress of matters as while I
recognize you may or may not agree with my set out, I nevertheless have an interest in how
50 matters unfold.
p6 8-2-2017 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
 7
The following statement I view is what also judges in the USA should keep in mind as to
principles to be applied when considering the separation of powers provided for in the US
Constitution.
5
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
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
10 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
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
15 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.
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
20 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
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,
25 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
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,
30 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
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
35 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
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,
40 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
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.
45 END QUOTE
From the material I read, I view your Presidential Executive 27-1-2017 order is appropriate to
what I view the intention of the constitution may stand for.
In my view Louhghalam v. Trump referred to above was the correct decision, at least to what I
understand the US constitution stands for.
50
I cannot leave unaddressed my thanks to Michael R. Masinter, Professor of Law, Nova
Southeastern University, 3305 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, 954.262.6151 who
provided me with a link, upon my request, to the website of the court to access the Louhghalam
v. Trump documentations.
55
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
p7 8-2-2017 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