ISSUE: 20171011- Re: The answer to the citizenship mess might be a VELVET REVOLUTION, etc & the constitution

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

Dont get me wrong I prefer the true meaning and application of the constitution but lets face it
from onset of federation it has been undermined and the High Court of Australia very much in
my view participated in it. Had it not banned the usage of the Hansard records of the constitution
convention debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) many past
judgments may never have resulted as it did. We may never have ended up with the citizenship
mess we have now.
Dual citizenship is part of our constitution:

It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; British
subject, to make persons subjects of the British Empire., with the consent of the
Imperial authority, 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., we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. We have a High Court of
Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth
by endorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of
Australia committed TREASON?

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.
END QUOTE
What we need is a High Court of Australia which doesnt pervert/twist the meaning of
constitutional words but accept that citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with nationality.
As by consent of the Commonwealth lawyers I did on 4 December 2002 (AEC v Schorel-
Hlavka) obtain a court order regarding my legal challenge to the constitutional validity of the

p1 11-10-2017 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
purported Citizenship Act 1948 then I view the High Court of Australia cannot ignore this but
should demand that the Commonwealth clarifies why it didnt comply with the order to place it
before the High Court of Australia as the matter being under a legal challenge therefore the
purported legislation is ULTRA VIRES.
It would be an absurdity that any foreign power somehow could legislate to make every
Australian a citizen/national of its country and then by this every Australian would be
automatically denied to be a federal Member of Parliament, this even so those in the Parliament
may not have a clue such legislation exist.
No country on earth could allow the undermining of its Parliament in such absurd manner.
Obviously the High court of Australia should make clear that it has got nothing to do with
citizenship but with dual nationality.
And then it should make clear that inherit nationality (even if called citizenship in a foreign
jurisdiction) cannot be deemed to deny a person his/her right to be a Member of Parliament
where the nationality was not by birth and not acquired by oath./affirmation.
Further the oath/affirmation to serve in the federal Parliament must be seen that the person by
this renounced any nationality (even if called citizenship) of any foreign nation. This as being a
Member of Parliament and being a national (citizens) of a foreign power cannot coincide.
The word citizens in the constitution was clearly deemed to be living within a foreign power.
Meaning a person cannot be a Member of Parliament while residing within the territory of a
foreign power.
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

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
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

p2 11-10-2017 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
 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

The High Court of Australia has no legal position to amend the constitutional meaning to
something that was never intended perhaps merely to suits its own contemporary views.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/justice-dept-reverses-obama-pro-transgender-interpretation-of-60s-civil-
rig?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=9ad12ffa5a-
ProFamily_10_10_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-9ad12ffa5a-
402672549&mc_cid=9ad12ffa5a&mc_eid=184e0ee7cc
Trump admin reverses Obama policy: Gender identity not a protected civil right Fr. Mark Hodges
QUOTE
Sessions defended his stand by saying it was a simple matter of the historical intent of legislators, and does
not necessarily indicate a strategic change. The understanding is a conclusion of law, not policy, the memo
read.
Sessions explained that the word sex in the 1964 law means biologically male or female, so that
particular statute says nothing about discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender
status.
Sessions went on to explain that the Obama administration overstepped its bounds in ascribing unimagined
modern categories to a 52-year-old anti-discrimination law. Specifically, the former president officially
interpreted civil rights legislation to include homosexuality and transgenderism.
Obama announced in 2014, I have determined that the best reading of Title VIIs prohibition of sex
discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status.
The Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided, Justice Department
spokesman Devin OMalley elaborated. Unfortunately, the last administration abandoned that fundamental
principle, which necessitated todays action.
OMalley clarified that this memo applies only to historical legislation that never intended to embrace
homosexuality or transgenderism. As a law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice must interpret
Title VII as written by Congress, he said.
END QUOTE
Likewise the word marriage must be taken as it was when the constitution was enacted in the
British Parliament. And the same with the word citizen.
It would take reams of paper to outline what is wrong with how the Commonwealth of Australia
operates as a commercial identity. It is the commercial registration that I view itself nullifies
every Member of Parliament to sit in the Parliament as such.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
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
END QUOTE
The registration with the US of A District of Columbia clearly places the entire Federal
Parliament under the obedience, or adherence to a foreign power of a foreign power!
We have a constitution that has been violated by politicians of all colour as well as by the courts
themselves.
Enough is enough.
If the High Court of Australia so to say is not willing to come clean and persist in the as I view it
rubbish it has been dishing out such as in Sue v Hill then I view the only way to resolve is to
have a V ELVET REVOTION where a new constitution is to be placed before the people setting

p3 11-10-2017 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
out precisely what some new/alternative constitution proposes to be and for the people to vote if
they veto or accept such submitted constitution, with or without being a Republic. If the people
were to veto such new constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) no longer is adhered to then each state will become its own sovereign power and the
federation will be no more.
It will then be up to the citizens of each State if they desire to get into some arrangements with
other stated to federalize or not!
We cannot have unelected judges on their contemporary views undermine the very principle of
s128 of the constitution, that provides that only the electors by majority of the votes of each State
and by majority of the States the constitution or any part thereof can be amended.
In my view it is the High Court of Australia that commenced to create this mess from onset and
we need to clarify what is to be applicable. It is absurd that candidates who stand for election and
successfully campaigned can then be robbed of their rights to sit in the Parliament merely
pending how some foreign power to which they may never have been a visitor let alone having
lived there could nevertheless interfere with their right to be a Federal Member of Parliament.
We must reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights and hold politicians and judges legally
accountable.
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

QUOTE Thomas Jefferson:

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working
like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless
step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over
the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.".
END QUOTE

No matter what the High Court of Australia may rule in current citizenship issues before the
court, it cannot have in my view any legal basis because of the various issues I have set out
above and in previous published documents (PRESS RELEASES)

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 11-10-2017 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