20170826-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Myth and Misconceptions About Citizenship in s44, Etc & The Constitution

ISSUE: 20170826 - Re The myth and misconceptions about citizenship in s44, etc & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

I am proud to have been born in The Netherlands way back in 1947 being a future Sentry of
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act1900 (UK). Dutch is my native language and
so arriving in Australia I had little choice but to learn the English language. Ok, I admit I am still
stuck with my self-professed Crummy-English but then no matter my so called shortfalls lately
wed have like dominos politicians ending up in the High Court of Australia about their alleged
violation of citizenship provisions of s44 of the constitution.
People basic ally told me, albeit more politely that I was crazy to take on the AEC about the
invalid federal election in 2001. As they made clear no judge would stick his head out to agree
with me no matter how right I was in matters. Well, I view the end result proved to be so. Even
Mr Peter Hanks QC appearing before the Court was found to have made false misleading
statements to ensure I would be defeated. But what they never contemplated was that I had other
intentions also to challenge it all. Being a candidate in the Federal election for JagaJaga I simply
refused to vote, even for myself, not because I held not to be worthy but because my
constitutional rights that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. And when then the AEC in AEC
v Schorel-Hlavka charged me for FAILING TO VOTE I promptly filed and served a s78B
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS which included:
High Court of Australia. This notice included:
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
1. 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?
p1 26-8-2017 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
END QUOTE
This, as I held that not a single lawyer/judge was validly appointed as Australian citizenship
cannot be constitutionally a nationality. If judges are not validly appointed then well there is no
court to hear and determine matters.
I am aware of the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill judgment but as this was to some extent
outside the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia anyone can disregard this.
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
As such one can ignore the beyond judicial powers ruling of the High Court of Australia
regarding this citizenship issue, etc.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
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 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
.
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 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
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 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
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
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, 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, 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 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, 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.
END QUOTE

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
And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.

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
And
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution.
END QUOTE
It therefore was beyond the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia to make any ruling
violating the true meaning and application of the constitution. In my view it was nothing less
than TREASON by the High Court of Australia to pretend otherwise then what is
constitutionally applicable.
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.
END QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 554, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1876),
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/?
QUOTE
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided that the Constitution of the United
States has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States
have no voters of their own creation in the States.
END QUOTE
Section 41 of the Constitution only provides the right to vote if one is an adult (depending what
age the Commonwealth ascribes to a person being an adult) but it cannot have its own electoral
roll. This, as the Commonwealth cannot give any person the right to vote who doesnt hold the
right to vote in a State (Territories are a quasi-state). As the Framers of the Constitution made
clear that the Commonwealth would have to rely upon State electoral rolls for federal elections.
When a person has the right to walk along highways as a pedestrian no one in his right mind
would then claim that the Government can force any person to walk say 1 kilometre along a
highway. What the Parliament however can do is to legislate that if a person is a pedestrian then
the person has to obey appropriate road rules and other legal provisions. Likewise so with voting.
A person cannot be forced to vote but if the person does exercise that right then the person can be
compelled to follow the rules and regulations as to the voting process.

Well ample of lawyers made clear to me that with the Commonwealth lawyers I had so to say
hope in hell to succeed. They made clear they were not even considering to try to take on the
government lawyers as they cannot be defeated.
Well, as I discovered with Mr Peter Hanks QC his what I consider dishonest conduct caused my
case to be railroaded. As such, I had a taste of it, but was not going to give up.
Challenging the validity of all judicial appointments surely is not a minor issue but to me I might
as well do a gigantic counter attack. On 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
Heidelberg, by consent, ordered that my s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
should be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
HANSARD Constitutional Convention 26 March 1897

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS: To whom does the country belong?
Mr. DOBSON: The country belongs to the people; but the people who are most entitled to our
consideration are the people who are thrifty and intelligent, and have something to pay our liability.
Mr. ISAACS: Life and liberty go for nothing, then!
END QUOTE

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

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
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE

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

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
":.. 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
Constitutional interpretation
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
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 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."
END QUOTE
The term citizenship in constitutional context refers to the location a person resides. As such,
take Julian Assange residing in an embassy of a foreign power, cannot then take up a seat in the
Parliament even if elected. He could validly stand for election as s44 was not intended to
disqualify him from being elected, provided that before he takes up the seat he disposes of such
citizenship of residing elsewhere. For all purposes and intend he is still as a British subject
entitled to be a Member of Parliament if he no longer is a citizen of a foreign power.
Moment, didnt the High court of Australia in wood and in Heather Hill cases (Sue v Hill) rule
that being a British subject disqualifies a person from holding a seat in the federal parliament?
Well the High Court of Australia may have done so but in my view this was without jurisdiction
and so cannot be applied.
One may then ask what about the Australian Citizenship Act 1948?
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
.
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
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 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
As such, where the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is ultra vires of the constitution
then it has no legal validity. Moment, what if the name is wrong but it would be merely renamed
Australian Nationality Act 1948? Well, there is still this ULTRA VIRES to the constitution. As
the Commonwealth of Australia was created as a POLITICAL UNION and the States are
actually the so to say countries within this POLITICAL UNION then the Commonwealth of
Australia cannot be turned into some independent country and so rob the States of their legal
positions. Take the European Union, it is a federation of different countries united under a
constitution that overrides each separate states local laws. Indeed this was amplified in the
decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and &
Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v.
Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE,
SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168 where it was held
that the European Union legislation did override British local laws. With Brexit this all will
change! However, you wouldnt hear a German saying he no longer is German national but a
European national, I doubt it? The Commonwealth of Australia the constitutional principle is that
a person is a British subject regardless of in which country at the time of birth the person
resided that was under British rule.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Sir EDWARD BRADDON.- QUOTE
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
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
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. END QUOTE
Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT.-
Can it be suggested, however high the Federal High Court may be in regard to attainments, that under any
circumstances the Judges of that court would have the experience, the training, and the knowledge of the men
composing the Court of the Privy Council? Would it be possible to separate the members of the Federal
High Court from local influences? Unintentionally, men are influenced by their surrounding
conditions. It does not follow because a man is to-day in public life as Attorney-General, and to-
morrow is sitting on the bench wearing the ermine, that he can dissociate himself or separate himself
from local surroundings and be unbiased or uninfluenced by those considerations. Take a case of
importance arising here. I admit that our Judges have great learning and extensive knowledge, and I admit the
great power and the great strength of our Supreme Courts throughout the various colonies, but I say that they
can have no experience equal to the men who occupy positions on the bench of the Privy Council. We are
told, however, that the members of the Privy Council do not understand our law, that they do not know our
conditions, and that they are unacquainted with local influences. Well, I have always considered that a very
trifling matter in fact, I have thought it was a very desirable thing that they did not understand our local
conditions, because our laws are not to be interpreted in regard to local conditions, but according to the intent
contained within every word in them, apart from local conditions. I have heard men express their
astonishment that the Judges of our own Supreme Court have not taken into consideration the Hansard
debates when they were giving judgment. I feel quite sure that when an appeal goes to the Privy Council all
these considerations are completely wiped out. The members [start page 2290] of the Board of the Privy
Council do not consider our local conditions, but interpret our Acts in the words in which they are printed. I
have already referred to the two chief objections to appeals to the Privy Council; first, the expense, and,
secondly, the delay. I have endeavoured to show that the expense is not so enormous as it is represented to be.
If honorable members will look at the return in relation to appeals to the Privy Council from decisions of the
Supreme Court in Queensland every layman, at all events, will be struck by the fact that the expenses of one
appeal were only 29 in Queensland, and 219 in the Privy Council-that means the taxed costs of the appeal.
It has nothing to do with the local costs; it means the preparation of the transcript and the final cost in
London. The difference between the cost of appeals to the proposed High Court and the cost of appeals to the
Privy Council is well but rather under stated, by Sir Lambert Dobson, in a document which is quoted at page
969 of the report of the debates of this Convention at Adelaide; and I think that we are very much indebted to
Sir Edward Braddon for quoting that information in the speech which he delivered on that occasion. In many
cases counsel's fees at the present time are higher here than I have ever known them before, and I say this
with a knowledge extending over 30 years of practical experience.
Mr. BARTON.-Counsel's fees are a great deal lower with us than they were a few years ago.
END QUOTE
Obviously as I view it, the High court of Australia sittings as a Court of disputed Returns for the
politicians in the Sue v Hill case may have grabbed the opportunity to hand down a judgment
declaring the Commonwealth of Australia to be an independent nation so it could so to say
prevent the Privy Council ever overruling its judgments. But in my view there was no judicial
powers to do so in an ordinary sitting.
If the constitution doesnt allow the Commonwealth of Australia to be turned into some republic
then the High Court of Australia cannot then achieve by backdoor manner what cannot be
achieved in a direct legal manner. Section 128 referendum of 1999 for a republic was ill-
conceived as it was beyond referendum powers to amend any of the other parts of the
constitution that are beyond the 128 sections.
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
his appointment.
END QUOTE
As such, our true nationality is that of being British subjects and no one can be ousted from this.

It may be argued that the British legislated otherwise, but it has no impact upon Australians. This
as it would require an Amending Constitution Act to amend the embedded British subject rights
in the constitution. No such Amendment Constitution Act was ever enacted. The purported
Australia Act (UK) (Cth) neither can achieve such result. And the Westminster Act neither could
have turned the POLITICAL UNION into some colony/dominion.
What we therefore have is that Australians either native born or naturalized are and remain to be
British subjects and also consider the following:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates; QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of the
Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it will be merely a
dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a citizen of the state? State
citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the citizenship of the Commonwealth.
When you have immigration, and allow different people to come in who belong to nations not of the
same blood as we are, they become naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they come here.
Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of the states, and it
is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens of the Commonwealth. Are you
going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens of the Commonwealth?
Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the Commonwealth? END QUOTE
The terms Australian citizen, Australian citizens , Australian citizenship,

Commonwealth citizens, federal citizen, citizen of the Commonwealth were used ongoing
by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to
nationality but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the
Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that
the term Australian citizenship cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be
an Australian nationality merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a
declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section
128 of the Constitution.
Hansard records:
13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen 04-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens 08-02-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
25-03-1897 Re; Australian citizens Re; Commonwealth citizenship
Re; dual citizenship Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth Re; federal citizenship
29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship Re; dual citizenship
30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen 15-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
Re; dual citizenship 23-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth 01-03-1898 Re; Australian citizens
Re; dual citizenship Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
12-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth 02-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
14-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth Re; federal citizenship
15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship Re; Commonwealth citizenship
15-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth Re; dual citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizenship 03-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
Re; dual citizenship Re; federal citizenship
17-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth Re; Commonwealth citizenship
28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship 10-03-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizens
Therefore, in my view anyone having by decent the right to a citizenship of another
country, even if this is to be deemed nationality then this got nothing to do with the term
citizenship in s44 of the constitution. However it may invoke other parts of s44!
Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]:
QUOTE Persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same
category as citizens of the country for the purpose of joining in legislation. END QUOTE
With adoption, etc, a person could be unknown to have a right to foreign nationality until having
entered the parliament and as such it is critical to avoid any possibly disqualification. In my view
the proper way to deal with matters is to acknowledge that Australians constitutionally that is are
and remained to be British subjects and unless a Member of Parliament having taken up a seat
then take an oath/affirmation of allegiance any external foreign power legislation to provide its
nationality must be deemed NULL AND VOID.
What I view the federal Parliament could have done was to ensure that the oath of taking a seat
included for a person to renounce any nationality implied or otherwise of a foreign power.
In my view the Parliament is entitled to retrospectively legislate for this as such. It then remains
if New Zealand being a State within the meaning of the Commonwealth of Australia can be
deemed otherwise. Obviously any Member of Parliament who exercises foreign nationality rights
must be deemed to violate s44 as such and be deemed disqualified to hold a seat.
While I did set out that Australian citizenship act is in itself unconstitutional and so the
appointment of lawyers/judges on this basis is invalid, I discovered since that the Liberal Partys
constitution relied on the same but instead of them correcting matters they turned so to say
against me. Any state legislation that relies upon Australian citizenship therefore also is in
question as it relies upon an unconstitutional legislation that is ULTRA VIRES.
The Commonwealth not only had the opportunity to sort this out because of the 4 December
2002 order for the High Court of Australia to hear and determine the citizenship issue also as part
of my s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, but also totally refrained from
challenging my about the same in the WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS in the ADDRESS TO THE
COURT on 19 July 2006, when I successfully appealed both convictions.
Obviously one has to ask how on earth can anyone be a competent Attorney-General/Shadow
Attorney-General if not even understanding the true meaning and application of the constitution
and what the meaning of citizens within s44 stands for.
Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
New clause 11A, as read, agreed to.
Mr. BARTON: I have to propose a new clause to follow clause 48 in this form:
Until the Parliament otherwise provides all questions of disputed elections arising in the Senate or House of
Representatives shall be determined by a Court exercising federal jurisdiction.
We have not said "the High Court" here, because there is power in the Constitution to invest any court with
federal jurisdiction, so that this clause will work in this convenient way that the Court of a State invested with
federal jurisdiction may determine such a matter in any States
Mr. KINGSTON: Is it for disputed return' only?
Mr. BARTON: Yes; vacancies and qualifications are left in both Houses.
Mr. SYMON: Is it "disputed returns" or "elections"?
Mr. BARTON: "Disputed elections." We consider that the more general term. END QUOTE
What disputed elections seem to refer to is issues regarding the election processes and not
qualifications itself of any candidate. As such, vacancies and qualifications are left in both Houses. I
view it is appropriate for the Parliament (each House respectively) deal with qualifications and
rule that members who purportedly by descent became nationals of foreign jurisdiction must be
deemed to have renounced this, even if they were unaware of such rights at the time, when taking
up the seat in the Parliament. To allow a foreign jurisdiction to legislate about the rights of any
Member of Parliament could instantly wipe out the qualification of the entire Parliament and that
I view the Framers of the Constitution never intended. I can understand that politicians having
thwarted the true meaning and application of the constitution and legislated for the purported
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 by this confused even the best of the legal eagles and they failed
to become aware of what I held was a very simple issue. In fact any person not holding British
subject nationality is constitutionally not entitled to hold a seat in the Parliament. I proved my
point! Australian citizenship is a myth as to being a nationality of a POLITICAL UNION
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!)

20170826-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Myth and Misconceptions About Citizenship in s44, Etc & The Constitution

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

20170826-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Myth and Misconceptions About Citizenship in s44, Etc & The Constitution

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ISSUE: 20170826 - Re The myth and misconceptions about citizenship in s44, etc & the constitution

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

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

p2 26-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p3 26-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p4 26-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD Constitutional Convention 26 March 1897

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p5 26-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p6 26-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p8 26-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

The terms Australian citizen, Australian citizens , Australian citizenship,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi