ISSUE: 20190913- Supplement 71-Lacking credible Senators

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

* Gerrit, that is some statement to make!

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, we have ignorant/incompetent lawyers and others being put in
the parliament supposing they are more suited and competent then ordinary citizens when in
reality they are in my view an utter disgrace to our constitutional system.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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
.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or
naturalized subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition
of a subject or citizen in America.
END QUOTE

So why are senators of Queensland not speaking up that any child born in the Commonwealth of
Australia are native born children and cannot be deported as stateless?
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

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

p1 13-9-2019 © 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
 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

While parents can take their Australian native born children to other countries the
Commonwealth of Australia simply has absolutely no constitutional powers to deport those
children, not even if they became adults.

It is a State legislative power and yet not a single Senator appears to have acted as a SENTRY to
oppose this unconstitutional conduct.
I in 2001 being an INDEPENDENT candidate in the Jagajaga electorate refused to vote. The
AEC then pursued me in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka. In 2004 again I refused to vote and the AEC
did pursue me for this also. I represented myself and in the end having also filed a Section 78B
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER on 3 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of
Victoria at Heidelberg by consent on 4 December 2004 ordered that the Section 78B NOTICE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS regarding CITIZENSHIP, etc, is to be heard and
determined by the High Court of Australia.
On 19 July 2006 on appeal the County Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction
upheld both appeals with none of the Attorney-Generals challenging anything I had
submitted in my 409 pages written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT, including that
the Commonwealth has no constitutional legislative powers to define/declare citizenship. The
high Court of Australia so far never heard and determined the Section 78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, and likely will never do so.
In law, when you formally object/challenge the validity of legislation as I did then for all
purposes and intend the legislation challenged is ULTRA VIRES AB Inito.
This means that the purported Australian Citizenship Act (2007) has no legal force as the
Commonwealth was specifically denied by the Framers of the Constitution to define/declare
citizenship. No referendum was ever held to amend the constitution to provide the
Commonwealth with legislative powers regarding define/declare citizenship.
* Shouldn’t the governments demand clarification from it constitutional lawyers why on earth
they failed to understand/comprehend this?
**#** More than likely in my view they have been brainwashed since birth and so cannot grasp
constitutional reality. It cannot excuse them as they are by what I consider sheer ignorance and
incompetence numerous children to suffer a hellish life being labeled stateless.

HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:

The resolutions conclude:

An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.

What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
p2 13-9-2019 © 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
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE
.
.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

Those who are Ministers and do not understand what the true meaning and application stands for
simply are not to be regarded to be “constitutional advisors” but imposters and should be
kicked out. In my view they are a FRAUD.
* Political parties can replace a Senators position with one of their own but could they say accept
you to become a Senator?
**#** If a political party was really interested in doing the right thing for the general community
then it will set aside party politics and acknowledge this rot has gone on for far too long and
requires a person like myself who dares to be a true SENTRY. I cannot accept that any Member
of Parliament has any moral values when ignoring the blatant hardship and cruelty imposed upon
Australian native born children to be deported as STATELESS.
* So the States should reclaim their constitutional rights to define/declare who shall be a citizen?
**#** As I and mind you unchallenged submitted to the court and succeeded in both appeals:
QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT 19 July 2006
QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Attorney General 19-11-2002
Victoria
p3 13-9-2019 © 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
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 isn’t in the
Constitution, then the Commonwealth had no legislative powers.
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!
At most, the Commonwealth, could determine “citizenship” as the local law for the Act and
Northern Territory through the parliaments governing those Territories (being Quasi States) as
they are not limited to constitutional provisions, however there never was any Constitutional
powers for the Commonwealth to grant citizenship to any resident of a State, neither determine
citizenship of a citizen of a State!
If your Department nevertheless maintains that the Commonwealth has the legislative powers to
determine citizenship of residents of the State of Victoria then please do set out in which
Constitutional manner the Commonwealth had this power from on set, if any, and/or how it
obtained this legislative power since the formation of the Commonwealth!
If anything, the Department of justice ought to be well aware that unless it is done lawfully it is
ULTRA VIRES!
END QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
No further reply was received by me upon this.

What was shown was that the Victorian government also had seemingly gone along to confuse
Australian citizenship with state citizenship! And that is the real problem. Somehow everyone,
other then me, seems to have lost reality as to what is applicable.
END QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT 19 July 2006

And the then Attorney-General state in writing to accept the decision of the Court then why has
for example the State of Victoria failed to act?
* Why indeed has not a single Senator spoken up for State rights when they are representing their
relevant States?

p4 13-9-2019 © 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
**#** That is because they were in my view brainwashed as like in numerous other issues and
those holding a law degree may consider themselves to be better then others when I view they
are the worst kind because others are relying upon them being competent in law when they are
not at all.
*.Would this be a case of THE QUEEN IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE QUEEN?
**#** It appears to be so as they have essentially acted treasonously to deny even the Monarch
proper constitutional position that any Australian native born child is a Subject of the British
Crown. The High Court of Australia might fancy whatever but to me the Sue v Hill decision is
simply utter rubbish and of no legal effect.

":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... 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. "
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
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
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
.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
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!)
p5 13-9-2019 © 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