ISSUE: 20190919- Supplement 72- Wrongful deportations

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

* Gerrit, is this a emotional plea or just a constitutional issue to you?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I see no need to try to make some emotional plea where the
rule of law must and can prevail.
I will quote below a correspondence i earlier today emailed to him and I received an automatic
confirmation. As such I know that he received it, albeit if he reads it that is for him to determine
but cannot excuse any ignorance.
QUOTE 20190919-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Dutton Minister
Mr Peter Dutton, Minister 19-9-2019
Email Peter.Dutton.MP@aph.gov.au'
Cc: Angel Aleksov, Barrister
Email aleksov@vicbar.com.au
Alice Graziotti
Estrin Saul Lawyers
Email info@estrinsaul.com.au
Re constitutional meaning of citizenship
Sir,
we all being human beings make errors in our lives however what is important is if we learn
from this.
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

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/tamil-family-to-remain-in-australia-until-final-court-hearing/11526050
Tamil family from Biloela to remain in Australia until final hearing of deportation case
QUOTE
 May 2015 Their first daughter Kopika is born
 June 2017 Their second daughter Tharnicaa is born
END QUOTE

The issue is therefore if either or both of the children were born within the Commonwealth of
Australia, being it in a State and/or Territory. If they were then irrespective of their parents being
aliens/(so called non-citizens)/undocumented person as in the USA the children nevertheless
acquired at birth the nationality of the country they were born. Hence, Kopika and Thanicaa
where I understand they were born within a State in the Commonwealth of Australia then are
Australian native born children.

p1 19-9-2019 © 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
I take it very serious of the Commonwealth and/or any lawyers acting for the children concealed
this from Federal Court judge Mordecai Bromberg.
It appears to me that the issue should never be if Kopika and/or Thanicaa should be subject to a
vias assessment because they in my view are falling outside the legislative powers of the
Commonwealth being Australian native born children.
The Commonwealth never had nor has any constitutional legislative powers to determine the
rights of an Australian native born child as to nationality. The constitution limit the
Commonwealth legislative powers to naturalize aliens! One cannot naturalise an Australian
native born child.
Neither can the Commonwealth invoke any immigration/emigration powers or that of influx of
criminals as it would be grossly absurd to claim that the children somehow are criminals, seeking
to re-enter the Commonwealth of Australia.

I accept that where it comes to the parents then the Commonwealth has always had the
constitutional powers to deport them if it deems to be appropriate in the circumstances.
However having stated this, it appears to be very obvious, at least from the various media
reports, that you neither any court so far appropriately heard and determined/considered the
matters regarding this family.
.
It is in my view totally irrelevant if the Commonwealth of Australia did or didn’t advise the
parents that they could not remain in Australia with or without children, this as the constitution
cannot be overruled by a Minister and neither by any tribunal/court.

In Gaynor v Burns the High Court of Australia made clear that a tribunal not being a court
cannot deal with any constitutional issue.

In my view the issue should always have been as follows:

In view that the children are Australian native born children and so Australians by
nationality then should the parents be deported nevertheless and they then decide to take
the children with them or leave the children in Australia in care of others so that they can
apply to be allowed to re-enter the Commonwealth of Australia to be re-united with their
children or should the Minister in this case even so disapproving of the parents conduct
decide that where the children are Australian native born children then it is in their interest
the Commonwealth allows the parents to remain in the Commonwealth of Australia .

In my view the various reports in the media do not appear to show this cardinal question as such
was ever placed before any tribunal/court.

In my view the Commonwealth of Australia has NO constitutional legislative powers to deport

an Australian native born child into a life of misery as a STATELESS child.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE

In my view there would be a justified claim for compensation against the Minister personally
where he has blatantly concealed from the courts that the 2 children actually are Australian
p2 19-9-2019 © 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
native born children and as such do not fall within the category to require to apply for any visa
and their detention in any Commonwealth Detention Centre is therefore unlawful.

The Framers of the Constitution made very clear:

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

And

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

As such there can be no excuse for a Minister to claim not to know relevant details of the true
meaning and application of the constitution.

It also in my view is totally irrelevant what the tribunals/courts may have so far decided with the
parents and the eldest child in that if at no time the true nationality of the eldest child and now
the youngest child was considered then all and any past decision is NULL AND VOID.

Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's Max. 349.

Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270

Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum. You are not to do evil that good may come of it. 11
Co. 74.

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
p3 19-9-2019 © 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
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section
256)
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.
Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys
the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts,
documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE

I deplore the conduct of lawyers who seek to agitate the general community to protest against the
deportation as a way to try to place pressure upon a Minister to revise his decision where in
particular as I have set out the Minister simply failed to make a decision within the context of the
true meaning and application of the constitution.
In fact it is my view that Federal Court judge Mordecai Bromberg ought to deal with the lawyers
(legal representatives) the Minister and any of his officials involved in the case for CONTEMPT
OF COURT and CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT as well as for
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE by concealing the proper status of either child.

There can in my view be absolutely no excuse for Immigration officials and any Minister to have
blatantly disregarded what the true meaning and application stands for.

There can be absolutely no excuse for Australian native born children having previously
deported as STATELESS where they by this were plunged into a life of misery.
.
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

I for one do not for one of iota approve any parent to misuse children for the sake of
immigration, however also recognise that it is normal for a heterosexual couple to have children
where nature provides for this ability and then the issue for the Commonwealth of Australia is to
prevent any childbearing opportunity to eventuate by keeping such persons outside the
Commonwealth of Australia. However where the Commonwealth allows persons to have a child
in the commonwealth of Australia then I view it must accept it cannot interfere with the
Australian native born child.

Essentially the commonwealth now has to notify all and any child previously deported as
STATELESS but which were born in the Commonwealth of Australia that they have and
retained their Australian nationality. The Commonwealth then has to re-consider each previous
deportation of such child and other family members as to their right to be in the Commonwealth
of Australia.

I am not employed by any law firm as my issue is that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I must act
as a SENTRY as I view each and every person must do. Nothing I stated above is intended and
neither must be perceived that I approve of the conduct of the parents however my issue is that
the children are Australian natives born children and cannot be deported by the commonwealth
of Australia of being aliens/non-citizens/STATELESS>

p4 19-9-2019 © 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
You are welcome to contact me for further details if you desire to do so. Due to a hearing
disability I prefer to communicate via email but you can text me via my mobile 04 250 299 44.

QUOTE 18-9-2019 correspondence Angel Aleksov Barrister

Angel Aleksov, Barrister 18-9-2019
Email aleksov@vicbar.com.au
Re constitutional meaning of citizenship
Angel,
while I may not be in favour of anyone using a child to try to sidestep legalities as not to be
deported on the other hand I also opposes any law which in my view is unconstitutional to be
used to deny a child of citizenship. Australian CITIZENHIP (see below) are as the USA
citizenship of any Australian native child, regardless if the parents are aliens. Both children
being Australian native born children are outside the Commonwealth legislative powers to be
deported! That in my view is the real caridnal issue for the court to determine!

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

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.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
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
p5 19-9-2019 © 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
 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.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

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 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

There is a lot more to it but as a self educated constitutionalist and (now retired) Professional
Advocate hold the view that constitutionally that is only a State can confer citizenship to a person
and this is obtained by birth in a State. Territories are held to be quasi states. Therefore, for all
purposes and intend in my view both Kopika and Tharunicaa are therefore citizens of the State
(not aliens) they were born in and by this automatically Australian citizens. In my view they are
for this native born. If either child had been born in a detention centre outside the
Commonwealth of Australia then I suspect citizenship doesn’t exist as such at birth. However,
only the States/Teritories can provide for State Citizenship and by this (again) Australian
citizenship is automatically. What the Commonwealth has done is to pervert the meaning of
CITIZENSHIP into being some nationality. And regretfully the High Court of Australia has gone
along with this utter and sheer nonsense. In my view the children cannot be deported.
Still, as I in a legal format challenged the Commonwealth powers to define/declare citizenship
and therefore this remains ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless or until if ever at all a court of
competent jurisdiction declare it to be INTRA VIRES. In view that this so far has not occurred it
means that the purported Australian Citizenship Act is and remains to be ULTRA VIRES.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE

You are welcome to contact me for further details if you desire to do so. Due to a hearing
disability I prefer to communicate via email but you can text me via my mobile 04 250 299 44.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 18-9-2019 correspondence Angel Aleksov Barrister

In my view there should be a proper investigation by the Legal Service Commission if lawyers
and others failed to appropriately disclose to the court relevant details. It is in my view totally

p6 19-9-2019 © 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
irrelevant if anyone may claim to have grown up under a system that claims to be different, this
as after all any client, in particular small child, is entitled to have competent legal representation.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 20190919-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Dutton Minister

* So your view is that the lawyers and others all failed to provide the true facts before the courts?
**#** Indeed. In my view if any lawyer would have raised this issue then unlikely would the
court have accepted the children to be placed in some detention centre. We must never accept
that innocent children are wrongly detained. I view that the Commonwealth had no legal position
to do so.
* But didn’t the court previously rule the eldest child could be deported?
**#** That is to me totally meaningless as where an order was obtained by FRAUD, as I view
this was part of it, then the orders cannot be enforced.
* If all wrongly deported children are actually Australian nationals then this would be a serious
matter, don’t you think?
**#** Indeed. And it also would underline how devastating it was to those children and how
grossly incompetent lawyers in immigration matters have been.
* You as a CONSTITUTIONALIST seem to be able to do a better job then all immigration
lawyers so far were able to do in that regard.
**#** When I was in management of factories I then discovered that machine setters who
worked for decades in the job actually had inborn errors. They simply didn’t realize this. And I
view the same with lawyers/judges/politicians and their officials. They all grew up in believing
some myth and well the innocent children suffered because of this. Perhaps if those wrongly
deported started to sue them all instead of taxpayers being lumped with the bills then we might
finally get a better system.
*. Wouldn’t it be difficult for anyone to realize that a child born in Australia is as like in the USA
having the nationality of the country it is born in?
**#** That to me is no excuse. They are getting paid to do a job and I provide my services free
of charge. I do it because I do care that the true meaning and application of the constitution is
followed. I yesterday also forwarded an email to PM Scott Morrison so during his trip to the
USA, etc, besides filling his ego and stomach may just fill his brains how a native born child in
the USA regardless if the parents are aliens/undocumented persons still gains American
nationality. We should never permit that innocent Australian native born children are held in a
detention centre as if they are aliens. Not a single member of parliament should allow this to be
part of governance! SHAME, SHAME!
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!)
p7 19-9-2019 © 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