20200218-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

ISSUE –
Re Josh Frydenberg & citizenship

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

* Gerrit, here we go again about the citizenship debacle.

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I reside in the Melbourne suburb Viewbank, and I understand
Josh Fryenberg being a Member of Parliament regarding a Melbourne area then surely could
have bothered to have some communication with me considering that on 19 July 2006 (County
Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630) I comprehensively defeated the
Commonwealth not only on compulsory voting but also on the issue of citizenship.
If therefore Josh cannot bother to communicate with me and rather risk his job well so be it.
He has my email address and so could easily arrange a meeting with me and I do not even charge
for my time for this. No use for him to have some lawyers who may lack to
understand/comprehend what the issues are about.
I am well aware that the High Court of Australia previously made various decisions, I consider ill
conceived, but then again nothing for it to now correct their past errors.

I will give you an example.

.
For many years I made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia had ever legal power to deport
any person (not just those claiming to be or deemed to be aliens) if there were or had been
unlawfully entering Australia.

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

p1 18-2-2020 © 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
 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. The moment be is under any
disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE

Yet the Commonwealth stupidly was paying even people to leave and providing them with
lawyers, etc.
And recently we had the High Court of Australia allowing 2 convicted criminals to stay in
violation to the Commonwealth being entitled to deport them.

As such the judiciary is encroaching upon the legislators, and so violating the separation of
powers.
.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15615/spain-migrants-deportations

Spain: European Court Approves Summary Deportations of

Illegal Migrants
QUOTE

 The Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and
whose rulings are binding on all 27 member states of the European Union — ruled that in
order for migrants to benefit from certain human rights protections, such as access to
lawyers, interpreters and the right to remain in Europe, they must first enter European
territory in a legal, as opposed to an illegal, manner.
 The ruling is being viewed as a major victory for those who believe that sovereign nation
states have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to enter their territory.
 "The ECHR's ruling determines that a nation state has the right to defend its borders.
When someone is dedicated to violating those borders, the nation state has the right to
return that person to their place of origin as quickly as possible." — Iván Espinosa de los
Monteros, spokesman for the Vox Party, November 13, 2020.
 It remains unclear if the ECHR's ruling will have a deterrent effect. Migrants, often using
extreme violence, are increasingly using the tactic of mass attacks against the border
fences in Ceuta and Melilla in an effort to overwhelm border police.

END QUOTE

Clearly what the European Court (as it is referred to) now decided, a reversal of past decision) is
clearly in line with the Ah Toy decision of the Privy Council.
Hence, I was right all along that those economical refugees (as they are referred to) are not
entitled to any legal representation, etc, at cost of tax payers where they unlawfully entered the
Commonwealth of Australia or sought to do so.
.
* OK, how then could Josh Fryenberg get you to lawfully participate in the case?
**#** That is very simple. I on 4 December 2002 obtained by consent a court order form the
Magistrates of Victoria in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka regarding my NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS that the matter was to be heard and determined by the High
Court of Australia. As this included the issue of challenging the constitutional validity of the
Australian Citizenship Act then constitutionally this act is and remains ULTA VIRES unless and
until if ever at all a court of competent jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES. This never
p2 18-2-2020 © 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
eventuated. In fact, the order remains on foot. Meaning that the Commonwealth could now
pursue this matter in the High Court of Australia in tandem with the case against Josh Fryenberg
and you might just discover the High Court of Australia finding it all along made incorrect ill-
conceived rulings.
* Why should the Commonwealth do this?
**#** During my successful appeals on 19 July 2006 I made clear that the onus was upon the
Commonwealth to have filed the case in the High Court of Australia. It failed to do so but it can
still do so.
* What about any cost?
**#** The Framers of the Constitution made clear:

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:

I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.

END QUOTE

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51].
END QUOTE

Do you really think that all those Attorney-Generals who were served with a NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS would have remained silent if they held I was wrong in my
constitutional claims?

They had the opportunity to challenge me and so the commonwealth during the 19 July 2006
hearing but decided not to do so. This means they conceded that I was correct. After all if they
wanted to they could have submitted to the court to make a limited judgment, etc. This they
didn’t do neither did they appeal the orders.
* So the Commonwealth could pay for you to travel to the location, wherever the court is sitting,
and seek leave to intervene and so obviously with your consent so that you become also a party
to the proceedings. Is that it?
**#** Obviously it would need to carry the cost for me to travel to the court, etc, as I should not
be out of pocket for this. I succeeded in the case way back in 2006 and entitled to this and while I
do not have an issue to try to get some sense in how the court looks at matters I am certainly not
going to spend my own monies when I had my success already. However in past litigation
involving citizenship issues the Commonwealth did make known that it would pay for the parties
and so all it would do is to keep to this.
*.Give me an example why besides your challenge about the Australian Citizenship Act there is
anything to indicate that say Josh Fryenberg is not in violation with S44 regarding his alleged
citizenship with Hungary?

p3 18-2-2020 © 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
**#** As I indicated in my successful appeals in 2006 “citizenship” has really nothing to do with
“nationality” and more over “citizenship” in the constitution means where a person resides in
another country and has the benefits of that country. For example, what was also stated:

Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a good thing to
limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has said that this is a matter that
should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be just one of those matters which are included in
the constitution of every one of the colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as
these, and it is perhaps right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be
rather a strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who were
undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or convicted of felony
or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite possible that somebody might take a
violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one
thing not to put limita- [start page 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the
commonwealth. It is another thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the
case as regards the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into
parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the case of the first
subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very conditions would suggest that their
interests were quite different from those of the citizens of the country. 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.

An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted?

The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie!

END QUOTE

Let me be very clear about it that the word “citizens” in S44 of the constitution is misconceived
and miss interpreted:

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

“Citizen” must be considered in the terms then applicable, not being some nationality. It means
that “citizenship” in Hungary, New Zealand and other countries cannot be applied in the context
that the Framers of the Constitution were referring to. As Barton made clear any person who
“takes the oath of allegiance to a foreign power”. Have a different standing. As such Unless Josh
Fryenberg himself as a born Australian (technically being a Subject of the British Crown – as I
submitted to the court in 2006 we all are) he remains to be entitled to be a Member of parliament.
How absurd would it be that some country could bestow honourable “citizenship” upon a
member of parliament, as I understand was with Bob Hawk, and then he would be ousted from
the Parliament. Surely we cannot have that a Member of parliament will be left to the wimps of a
foreign power?
Say a Member of Parliament suddenly discovers that his/her father turn out not to be the
biological father and some biological father has certain rights to some other country. It would be
sheer and utter nonsense to then oust this Member of Parliament for having certain paternal
rights passed on without his/her knowledge.
p4 18-2-2020 © 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
QUOTE
PART II
THE REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION
Republic of Singapore.
3.
Singapore shall be a sovereign republic to be known as the Republic of Singapore.
Supremacy of Constitution.
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted
by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with
this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
END QUOTE

And
QUOTE
Commonwealth citizenship.
139. --(1) In accordance with the position of Singapore within the Commonwealth, every
person who is a citizen of Singapore enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a
Commonwealth citizen in common with the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
(2) Any existing law shall, except so far as Parliament otherwise provides, apply in relation
to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is not also a Commonwealth citizen as it applies
in relation to a Commonwealth citizen.
END QUOTE

Again:
“by virtue of that citizenship the status of a Commonwealth citizen in common with the
citizens of other Commonwealth countries.”

It means that all Australians are entitled to the rights of citizens of Hong Kong.

OK are we now going to disqualify each and every Australian from being a Member of
Parliament by virtue of the rights of having rights as a Commonwealth citizenship?

That is not what the Framers of the Constitution intended.

.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives
within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including
the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
END QUOTE

Here the difference between the Singaporean constitution “ Commonwealth citizen” and “a
citizen of the Commonwealth” the Framers of the constitution referred to is that Singapore refers
to a person being a citizen of a Commonwealth country whereas the Framers of the Constitution
relied upon being a “Commonwealth citizen” one only achieved this by being a “State citizen”.
As such a total different meaning.
.
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
p5 18-2-2020 © 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
 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.

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

So much more to it all but again my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS clearly was
dealing with this. It has never been heard and determined by the High Court of Australia even so
the 4 December 2002 order is still on foot.
*. What about Barnaby Joyce previously being ousted for having rights of Australian citizenship?
**#** In my view he was wrongly ousted and in fact I did notify the Registrar of the High Court
of Australia beforehand about the outstanding 4 December 2002 court order but that was as I
view it conveniently ignore. Still, my legal challenge never having been overruled means it
remains as much valid now and so AB INITIO. It is well overdue that the Federal government
finally deal with matters appropriately as otherwise as I indicated above we could see some
parliamentarian suddenly discovering to have a biological father not known before who had
certain rights to a foreign power and then the person is ousted from Parliament. Say a Member of
Parliament due to someone doing DNA then traced back to the Member of Parliament and then
the Member of Parliament discovers he was unbeknown to him/her adopted and his biological
parents has certain rights with a foreign power. Are we to expel Members of Parliament for this
regardless this was never what the Framers of the Constitution intended?

Technically every Member of Parliament could now be deemed disqualified to sit in the
Parliament because of the allegiance to a foreign power being the District of Columbia that is
under authority of the Senate of the USA Congress, where the Commonwealth of Australia is
registered with it.

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!)
p6 18-2-2020 © 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