Page 1

1
2
3 Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus 18-11-2023
4 Email [email protected],
5
6 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
7 Re National Security issues-Supplement 1
8 Sir,
9 it appears to me that the High Court of Australia has set itself up to be another political party
10 governing from the bench rather than to remain impartial and adjudicate within the confines of
11 the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
12

13
14
15 In my view the Commonwealth of Australia likewise is entitled to deny entry/evict a person who
16 is TRESPASSING and refuse to leave then to incarcerate until the person complies to leave As
17 set out below each person failing to leave is not indefinitely incarcerated as the person so to say
18 had/has “the key to his prison cell” by simply leaving as lawfully required!
19 What I view is scandalous is that the High Court of Australia may take months to hand-down a
20 reason of judgment and by this deny the general community to be aware why it handed down
21 orders which may be ill conceived in any case. It also denies the Parliament to have proper
22 knowledge as to what the court used to hand down its orders and how within constitutional
23 provisions it may legislate to address certain issues, this in particular where the court now
24 appears to have overruled it past decision. I as a constitutionalist am concerned that the decision
25 may have been ill conceived and may be a failure to remain within judicial powers and may have
26 trespassed upon the powers of the Parliament to legislate. It is not upon the court, as it did in past
27 judgments violating the separation of powers and I have set out below some issues. It may even
28 result for the court having scored an own goal, as it now no longer either can incarcerate a person
29 indefinitely on the basis that the prisoner has the key to his own cell door, and can leave if
30 complying to a court order. In my view it is well over due that court are limited and subject to
31 legislative provisions that when a court holds a person in contempt of court it then too cannot
32 order the person to remain incarcerated unless the person complies with a court order as one
33 cannot have DOUBLE STANDARDS.
34
35 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12727823/Refugee-raped-boy-Australia-High-
36 Court-ruling.html
18-11-2023 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 Paedophile refugee who raped a 10-year-old boy can stay in Australia after landmark
2 High Court ruling against indefinite detention - as advocates celebrate 'important'
3 victory
4
5 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12750903/Asylum-seeker-hotel-Sydney-High-
6 Court.html
7 Welcome from freedom hotel: Asylum seeker who is one of the 83 'hardened criminals' freed
8 by High Court ruling goes berserk when approached at drab motel in Sydney suburbia - that
9 YOU are paying for
10 QUOTE
11 A cheap motel on a highway in Sydney's west is the new home for nine asylum seekers
12 freed from detention by a controversial High Court decision.
13 Last weekend the men were driven from Villawood Immigration Detention Centre to the
14 drab three-storey building near a service station and fast food outlet.
15 They are among 83 asylum seekers who have been let out into the community after
16 the High Court found on November 8 that their indefinite detention was unlawful.
17 They will support themselves with at least $550 a fortnight from the Government's Status
18 Resolution Support Service as well as being provided with free Medicare.
19 Three of those released are murderers, one of whom killed a pregnant woman in Malaysia,
20 and another was previously jailed for raping a 10-year-old boy in Sydney.
21 The government has said the released detainees will be strictly monitored. Opposition
22 leader Peter Dutton has described those released by the ruling as 'hardcore criminals'.
23 Daily Mail Australia approached several residents at the motel who were wandering freely
24 around the grounds on Wednesday and was met with a barrage of abuse.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 The underlying problem with the High Court of Australia is that as it appears to me lawyers are
28 appointed to be judges who do not appear to me to have a clue what the true meaning and
29 application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution are. It is in my view like going to
30 a kindergarten and appoint a child to be a brain surgeon in a hospital.
31
32 I have been very outspoken in the past about what I consider TREASON by judges of the High
33 Court of Australia such as in Sue v Hill and other cases.
34
35 Let us consider the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution!
36
37 Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
38 QUOTE
39 Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
40 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
41 Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
42 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
43 inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
44 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
45 within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
46 citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
47 to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
48 definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
49 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
50 Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
51 Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
52 determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
53 Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
54 END QUOTE
55
18-11-2023 Page 2 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1 It is important that any person reading this document is and remains to be open minded and not
2 make bias conclusions merely because of what might have been parroted by politicians and
3 others, like what I view sheer incompetent judges of the High Court of Australia.
4
5 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/10/australia-to-offer-residency-to-tuvalu-residents-displaced-
6 by-climate-change
7 Australia to offer residency to Tuvalu citizens displaced by climate ...
8 6 days ago ... Anthony Albanese announces immigration plan with special visa category for people affected by
9 rising sea levels in the vulnerable Pacific ...
10 QUOTE
11 Australia will offer up to 280 people access to permanent residency each year, but it has
12 also promised to help the citizens of Tuvalu “stay in their homes with safety and dignity”.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/why-albanese-s-pretty-massive-pacific-pact-will-irk-beijing-
16 20231110-5ej4f.html
17 Why Albanese's 'pretty massive' Pacific pact will irk Beijing
18 6 days ago ... Tuvalu's foreign minister addressed the UN's Glasgow climate conference from a lectern
19 thigh-deep in seawater to get attention: “We are sinking.
20
21 https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/albanese-opens-borders-in-landmark-climate-refuge-deal-with-tuvalu-
22 20231110-p5ej0i
23 Albanese opens borders in landmark 'climate refuge' deal with Tuvalu
24 6 days ago ... Australia will offer permanent residency to Tuvalu's population of 11,200 under a world-first
25 resettlement agreement for “climate refugees” ...
26
27 https://www.9news.com.au/national/australia-tuvalu-agreement-climate-change-prime-minister-anthony-
28 albanese/fa968937-a2ca-436f-966e-37459159ac26
29 Prime minister signs historic climate change deal allowing citizens of ...
30 6 days ago ... All citizens of the Pacific nation of Tuvalu will be able to apply for a new visa to move to
31 Australia and flee the catastrophic impacts of ...
32
33 https://www.pm.gov.au/media/strengthening-regional-ties-through-pacific-islands-forum
34 Strengthening regional ties through the Pacific Islands Forum
35 6 days ago ... While attending the PIF Leaders Meeting, Prime Minister Albanese and the Prime Minister
36 of Tuvalu, The Hon. Kausea Natano, announced a major ...
37
38 https://time.com/6333731/australia-climate-refuge-pact-tuvalu/
39 Australia Signs Historic Climate Refuge Pact With Tuvalu | TIME
40 6 days ago ... Australia has struck the “most significant” Pacific agreement in its history with the tiny island
41 nation of Tuvalu, Prime Minister Anthony ...
42
43 https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/albanese-under-fire-over-tuvalu-pact-from-climate-
44 deniers-activists/news-story/590130a82351578cf75bf20abeda0968
45 Albanese under fire over Tuvalu pact from climate deniers, activists
46 4 days ago ... Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed a wide-reaching pact with Tuvalu's Prime Minister
47 Kausea Natano this week, including an offer of ...
48
49 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-offer-climate-refuge-all-residents-tuvalu-report-2023-
50 11-10/
51 Australia signs security, migration pact with Pacific's Tuvalu - Reuters
52 6 days ago ... Albanese said it was Australia's most significant agreement with a Pacific Island nation, giving
53 "a guarantee that upon a request from Tuvalu ...
54
55 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-10/tuvalu-residents-resettle-australia-sea-levels-climate-
56 change/103090070
57 Anthony Albanese offers Tuvalu residents the right to resettle ... - ABC
58 6 days ago ... Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a new pact with the low-lying island country
59 of Tuvalu, allowing residents facing displacement ...
60
18-11-2023 Page 3 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

1 https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-rarotonga-cook-islands
2 Press conference - Rarotonga, Cook Islands
3 6 days ago ... KAUSEA NATANO, PRIME MINISTER OF TUVALU: Thank you, Mr Prime Minister, the
4 Honourable Anthony Albanese, and your Government for your ...
5
6 It should be understood that any person who comes to reside in the Commonwealth of Australia
7 while gaining State citizenship/Australian citizenship this is not a “nationality” any child of them
8 born within the Commonwealth of Australia would by birth be an Australian and be a “Subject
9 of the British Crown”.
10 While I understand the Commonwealth of Australia has in the past deported native born children
11 in Australia as being stateless, etc, yet somehow the High Court of Australia has overturned
12 deportation of ‘aliens” who had criminal convictions including a murdered because of having
13 had a child born with a woman in Australia. Which essentially means the High Court of
14 Australia has violated the ‘separation of powers’ to not just adjudicate within its judicial powers
15 but to govern from the bench. The ridiculous situation being that a convicted criminal for
16 murder who entered under a false name (already previously having been deported) then having
17 fathered a child in Australia is held to be allowed to remain in Australia and the High Court of
18 Australia by this unconstitutionally interfered with the Federal Government powers to deport this
19 person,, while those who were denied refugee status, etc, but other than entering the
20 Commonwealth had no criminal records and while in Australia having sired children are then
21 forced to be deported nevertheless with their children, this even so those children actually are
22 native Australians.
23
24 In Sue v Hill the High Court of Australia pretended that Australia is an independent country,
25 whereas the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
26
27 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
30 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
31 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
32 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
33 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
34 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
35 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
36 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
37 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
38 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
39 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
40 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) (The Constitution)
44 QUOTE
45 8 Application of Colonial Boundaries Act
46 After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any
47 colony which becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be
48 taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes of that Act.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 This Clause 8 cannot be interfered with by any Clause 9 provision and so neither Section 128
52 referendum powers or any Ss51(xxxviii) powers. Hence, to me the Sue v Hill judgment was in
53 that regard sheer and utter nonsense.
18-11-2023 Page 4 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 5

1
2 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
3 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
4 There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to
5 amendments of the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be
6 passed by an absolute majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if
7 that is done, the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of
8 the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose, and that then if the
9 amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law,
10 subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might
11 be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
12 no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
18 we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 While the Commonwealth of Australia is a “political union” for legislative powers it is
22 considered to be like a “self-governing” “colony”!
23
24 This means that when it comes to Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
25 1900 (UK) British law in regard of the Clause 9 legislative powers cannot interfere with this.
26
27 Remember:
28
29 QUOTE
30 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
31 considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v
32 English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and
33 Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS
34 OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on
35 appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
36 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
37 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
38 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia
39 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 That is why I all long claimed over the decades that British ordinary law (so any European Union
43 legislation) can only be complimentary to Australian law. While the European Union legislation
44 was overriding British law, this because the UK had signed the EU constitution to allow for this
45 (when it was still part of the EU) any ordinary legislation of the UK and/or EU still would be
46 only applicable “complimentary” and couldn’t interfere with any Australian legislation!
47
48 With “complimentary” one has to understand that if Australian law did not provide for certain
49 legislative provisions and the UK/EU legislation as to be “complimentary” applicable, for so far
50 it doesn’t conflict with Australians legislative provisions.
51
52 Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999)
53 QUOTE
18-11-2023 Page 5 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 6

1 172. The final matter which should be mentioned is the enactment of the Australia Act
2 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK) (together referred to as "the Australia
3 Acts"), the long title of the former of which is:
4 "An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth
5 and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of
6 Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation".
7 By s 1 of each of the Australia Acts, it is provided that:
8 "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the
9 commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the
10 Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the
11 Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory."
12 By other provisions of the Australia Acts, the States are authorised to legislate
13 repugnantly to the laws of the United Kingdom[215] and the responsibility of the
14 United Kingdom government in relation to the States was terminated[216], as were
15 appeals to the Privy Council[217].
16 173. At the very latest, the Commonwealth of Australia was transformed into a
17 sovereign, independent nation with the enactment of the Australia Acts. The
18 consequence of that transformation is that the United Kingdom is now a foreign
19 power for the purposes of s 44(i) of the Constitution.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Obviously, at least to me is utter and sheer nonsense as the purported Australia Act 1986 (UK)
23 was to do no more but to claim that future UK/EU laws that were enacted no longer would be
24 applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia.
25 Now, get this, the purported Australian Act 1986 (UK) did no more but to claim future
26 legislation, meaning that the “complimentary” legislation of the UK/EU would no longer be
27 applicable. It did not whatsoever alter the constitution Clause 9 or did it alter any other part of
28 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). So, in real terms it is claimed that
29 future “ordinary” legislation of the UK/EU no longer would be applicable.
30 It did not at all declare that the entire Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
31 No longer was applicable. After all the powers within Ss51(xxxviii) couldn’t achieve this.
32
33 Perhaps, merely guessing, the Commonwealth wanted to prevent lawyers using Human Rights
34 legislation of the EU to be claimed to apply to the Commonwealth of Australia and so the
35 States/Territories, but that would be a fallacy of facts, this because of Australians have their
36 rights and not what politicians and their collaborators/minion may deem to be permissible! Our
37 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) includes the rights such as set out by
38 “https://namastepublishing.co.uk/elisabeth-beckett-her-untold-story/ Elisabeth Beckett –
39 Defender of the British Constitution Her Untold Story,”!
40 Meaning, that those legal provisions that were embedded in the British unwritten constitution
41 (meaning all kinds of laws, judgments, etc, that is deemed the unwritten constitution) at the time
42 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) being proclaimed are embedded
43 as legal principles in the constitution. Yet, they are generally ignored because they are not
44 written in the constitution.
45
46 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
47 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
48 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten
49 Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When
50 once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it.
51 END QUOTE
52
18-11-2023 Page 6 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 7

1 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
4 END QUOTE
5
6 It should not be overlooked that no Parliament can deny legislative powers to a subsequent
7 Parliament and as such the purported Australian Act 1986 (UK) is without any real powers as
8 any current and future UK Parliament can simply re-commence to legislate again regarding the
9 Commonwealth of Australia, albeit it remains to be “complimentary” legislation, as was before!
10
11 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
12 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
13 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving
14 that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy
15 from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts
16 through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people
17 having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any
18 one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of
19 the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
20 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is
21 no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a
22 different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your
23 Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under
24 this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution
25 he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily
26 determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the
27 guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us
28 have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work
29 can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
30 critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for
31 them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
32 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
33 Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
34 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this
35 Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal
36 Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
37 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our
38 Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people,
39 which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall
40 any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their
41 own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
42 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as
43 the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no
44 citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those
45 who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
46 the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are
47 bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this
48 kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions,
49 then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so
50 whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people
51 will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here,
52 which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
18-11-2023 Page 7 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 8

1 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext
2 of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states
3 from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things,
4 I think this Convention has done well.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 What in my view the judges of the High Court of Australia actually did was to twist the
8 application of Ss51(xxxviii) as if it somehow could now apply to the entire Commonwealth of
9 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to be some kind of amendment constitution act.
10
11 Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999)
12 QUOTE
13 At the very latest, the Commonwealth of Australia was transformed into a sovereign,
14 independent nation with the enactment of the Australia Acts. The consequence of that
15 transformation is that the United Kingdom is now a foreign power for the purposes of
16 s 44(i) of the Constitution.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 How gullible if not grossly incompetent must all lawyers have been to go along with this rot?
20
21 HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
22 QUOTE
23 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they
24 determine upon asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my
25 part, I believe that all the prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as
26 they relate to Australia. I never entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far
27 as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
32 In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be
33 defined under this constitution.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
37 QUOTE
38 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the
39 argument of hon. gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr.
40 Deakin, talks about the powers exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain.
41 They do not differ in any respect from the powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in
42 any other country.
43 Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here!
44 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.
45 Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!
46 END QUOTE
47
48 I understand that the High Court of Australia also declared that the term “for the peace, order,
49 and good government” in Section 51 of the constitution has no application. This is the High
50 Court of Australia seeking to amend the constitution by backdoor manner to which it lacks any
51 judicial powers.
52
53 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
54 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
18-11-2023 Page 8 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 9

1 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should
2 be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great
3 amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we
4 have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of
5 lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and
6 create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been
7 exercised.
8 END QUOTE
9 .
10 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs)
13 is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672]
14 one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the
15 provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting
16 together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material
17 they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be
18 incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least
19 degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these
20 provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable;
21 and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be
22 very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no
23 word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in
24 time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed
25 and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words
26 which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of
27 us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for
28 every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”, “Commonwealth
32 citizens”, “federal citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used ongoing by the Framers of
33 the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to “nationality” but in regard of
34 citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the Commonwealth of Australia.
35 Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that the term “Australian
36 citizenship” cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be an “Australian
37 nationality” merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a declaration as the
38 proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section 128 of the
39 Constitution.
40
41 13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
42 13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
43 25-03-1897 Re; Australian citizens
44 Re; dual citizenship
45 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
46 29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
47 30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
48 Re; dual citizenship
49 31-03-1891 Re; Australian citizen
50 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
51 Re; dual citizenship
52 12-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
18-11-2023 Page 9 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 10

1 14-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth

2 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
3 15-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
4 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
5 Re; dual citizenship
6 17-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
7 24-01-1898 Re; Australian citizen
8 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
9 Re; Commonwealth citizens
10 04-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
11 08-02-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
12 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
13 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
14 Re; federal citizenship
15 Re; dual citizenship
16 15-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
17 23-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
18 24-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
19 01-03-1898 Re; Australian citizens
20 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
21 02-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
22 Re; federal citizenship
23 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
24 Re; dual citizenship
25 03-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
26 Re; federal citizenship
27 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
28 04-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
29 10-03-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
30
31 .Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
33 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard
34 to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to
35 pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
36 Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by
37 the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
41 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
42 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
43 regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
44 Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
45 elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
46 not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
47 END QUOTE
48
49 In AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the Magistrates Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction on 4
50 December 2002 by consent of the Commonwealth ordered that the NOTICE OF
51 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER which included a challenge to “compulsory” part of voting
52 and also that the purported Australian Citizenship Act (Cth) was unconstitutional to be heard and
18-11-2023 Page 10 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 11

1 determined by the High Court of Australia. Subsequently after other hearings I appealed both
2 cases and on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld both appeals. At that time these
3 matters were also before the court. Neither the Commonwealth and./or any of the Attorney-
4 Generals challenged any of my written submission (409 pages ADDRESS TO THE COURT)
5 and as such my appeals were uncontested. As such those issues are now subject to Res judicata.
6 Also the issues I litigated are now ULTRA VIRES unless and until a court of competent
7 jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES. The High Court of Australia despite being aware of
8 these orders of 4 December 2002.Legally the High Court of Australia cannot hear and determine
9 the matter because of implied bias. This, as the judges of the High Court of Australia allegedly
10 have “Australian citizenship” as a nationality that is non existing in the Commonwealth of
11 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and in Sue v Hill purportedly claimed that those with
12 “Subject of the British Crown” have no legal standing to be a Member of Parliament. This when
13 exactly the opposite if applicable. Meaning no purported judge is qualified to be a judge!
14 “Australian Citizenship” is a constitutional term that defines a person place of abode and is the
15 result of being granted “State citizenship” (Territories are quasi States). Regardless what the
16 High Court of Australia may have treasonously claimed in Sue v Hill native born Australians are
17 “Subject of the British Crown” and so any person who naturalises. The Framers of the
18 Constitution made clear that all native born and naturalised Australians were equal in law. We
19 have ongoing claims about “indigenous Aboriginals” albeit this is not a constitutional term, it is
20 simply made up by whomever. The same with regard to the term “traditional owners” and “First
21 Nations”. Let us also now first refer to Tuvalu and Torres Strait Islanders.
22
23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torres_Strait_Islands
25 QUOTE

26
27 END QUOTE
28 And
29 QUOTE
30 Population
31  2021 estimate 11,900 (194th)
18-11-2023 Page 11 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 12

1  Census 10,645
2  Density 475/km2 (1.232.5/sq mi) (27th)
3 END QUOTE
4 and
5 QUOTE
6 Prehistory[edit]
7 The origins of the people of Tuvalu are addressed in the theories regarding the migration
8 into the Pacific that began about 3000 years ago.
9 END QUOTE
10 and
11 QUOTE
12 The Torres Strait Islands are an archipelago of at least 274 small islands in the Torres
13 Strait, a waterway separating far northern continental Australia's Cape York Peninsula and
14 the island of New Guinea. They span an area of 48,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi), but their total
15 land area is 566 km2 (219 sq mi).
16 The Islands are inhabited by the indigenous Torres Strait Islanders. Lieutenant James
17 Cook first claimed British sovereignty over the eastern part of Australia at Possession
18 Island in 1770, but British administrative control only began in the Torres Strait Islands in
19 1862. The islands are now mostly part of Queensland, a constituent State of
20 the Commonwealth of Australia, but are administered by the Torres Strait Regional
21 Authority, a statutory authority of the Australian federal government. A few islands very
22 close to the coast of mainland New Guinea belong to the Western Province of Papua New
23 Guinea, most importantly Daru Island with the provincial capital, Daru.
24 Only 17 of the islands are inhabited. [2] The Torres Strait Islands' population was recorded
25 at 4,514 in the 2016 Australian census, with 91.8% of these identifying as Indigenous
26 Torres Strait Island peoples. Although counted as Indigenous Australians, Torres Strait
27 Islander peoples, being predominantly Melanesian, are ethnically and culturally
28 different from Aboriginal Australians.
29 END QUOTE
30 and
31 QUOTE
32 In 1872, the boundary of Queensland was extended to include Thursday Island and other
33 islands in Torres Strait within 60 miles of the Queensland coast. [4]
34 In June 1875, a measles epidemic killed about 25% of the population, with some islands
35 suffering losses of up to 80%, as the islanders had no natural immunity to European
36 diseases.[8]
37 In 1879, Queensland annexed the other Torres Strait Islands. They were classified as part
38 of the British colony of Queensland and, after 1901, of the Australian state of Queensland.
39 But some of them lie just off the coast of New Guinea.
40 END QUOTE
41 and
42 QUOTE
43 20th century to present[edit]
44 In 1904, the peoples of the Torres Strait Islands were made subject to the Aboriginals
45 Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 ,[11] which gave draconian powers to
46 the Queensland government in placing legal restrictions on natives and on their land use. [10]
47 In 1899, John Douglas had initiated a process of electing island councils, intended to
48 loosen the power of missionaries in the islands. They had become powerful by default
49 because the government did not have resources to administer the territory. In the Western
50 islands, where the traditional lifestyle was semi- nomadic, the council system continued to
51 thrive.[10]
52 During World War II, many Torres Strait Islander people served in the Torres Strait Light
53 Infantry Battalion of the Australian Army.[citation needed]
18-11-2023 Page 12 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 13

1 From 1960 to 1973, Margaret Lawrie captured some of the Torres Strait Islander people's
2 culture by recording their recounting of local myths and legends. Her anthropological
3 work, stored at the State Library of Queensland , has recently been recognised and registered
4 with the Australian UNESCO Memory of the World Programme.[10]
5 The proximity of the islands to Papua New Guinea became an issue when the territory
6 started moving to gain independence from Australia, which it gained in 1975. The Papua
7 New Guinea government objected to the position of the border close to the New Guinean
8 mainland, and the subsequent complete control that Australia exercised over the waters of
9 the strait. The Torres Strait Islanders opposed being separated from Australia and insisted
10 on no change to the border.[12] The Australian Federal government wished to cede the
11 northern islands to appease Papua New Guinea, but were opposed by the Queensland
12 government and Queensland Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.[13]
13 An agreement was struck in 1978 whereby the islands and their inhabitants remained
14 Australian, but the maritime boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea was
15 defined as running through the centre of the strait. In practice the two countries co-operate
16 closely in the management of the strait's resources.[14]
17 In 1982, Eddie Mabo and four other Torres Strait Islander people from Mer (Murray Island)
18 started legal proceedings to establish their traditional land ownership. Because Mabo was
19 the first-named plaintiff, it became known as the Mabo Case. In 1992, after ten years of
20 hearings before the Queensland Supreme Court and the High Court of Australia, the latter
21 court found that the Mer people had owned their land prior to annexation by
22 Queensland.[15] This ruling overturned the long-established legal doctrine of terra
23 nullius ("no-one's land"), which held that native title over Crown land in Australia had been
24 extinguished at the time of annexation. The ruling thus has had far-reaching significance
25 for the land claims of both Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aboriginal people. Its
26 effects are still being felt in the 21st century, as indigenous communities establish claims
27 to their traditional lands under the Native Title Act of 1993.
28 On 1 July 1994, the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) was created. In March 2008,
29 fifteen Torres Strait Islander Councils were amalgamated into a single body to form a
30 Torres Strait Island Regional Council, or Torres Strait Island Region, created by
31 the Queensland Government in the interest of financial viability, and accountability and
32 transparency of local governments throughout the State. [10] It is administered from Thursday
33 Island, but Thursday, Horn Island , Prince of Wales Island and many others are under
34 the Shire of Torres council.[16]
35 In the 2016 census, the population of the Torres Strait Islands was 4,514, of whom 4,144
36 (91.8%) were Torres Strait Islanders.[1] These inhabitants live on only 14 of the 274
37 islands.[17] For comparison, people identifying themselves as of Torres Strait Islander
38 descent living in the whole of Australia numbered 32,345, while those of both Torres Strait
39 Islander and Aboriginal descent numbered a further 26,767. [18]
40 END QUOTE
41
42 The Framers of the constitution had made it very clear that any Torres Strait Islanders land
43 claims had to be resolved before federation. However, as the Dutch had claimed “new Holland”
44 in 1658 then the question arises if Torres Strait Islanders by this by the annexation lost any land
45 rights if they were not recognised prior to federation, considering the Dutch did not seem to have
46 granted any land rights.?
47
48 https://www.britannica.com/topic/annexation
49 Annexation
50 QUOTE
51 Annexation, a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto
52 outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty,
18-11-2023 Page 13 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 14

1 annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by

2 general recognition.
3 Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered
4 territory. Occasionally, as in the German annexation of Austria in 1938 (see Anschluss), a
5 conquest may be accomplished by the threat of force without active hostilities. Military
6 occupation does not constitute or necessarily lead to annexation. Thus, for instance,
7 the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War
8 II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an
9 official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing
10 state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a
11 declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, as did Russia following its
12 annexation of the Ukrainian autonomous republic of Crimea in 2014. The subsequent
13 recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on
14 the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations.
15 Conditions may exist which obviate the necessity for conquest prior to annexation. In
16 1910, for example, Japan converted its protectorate of Korea into an annexed colony by
17 means of proclamation. Preceding its annexation of the Svalbard Islands in
18 1925, Norway eliminated its competitors by means of a treaty in which they agreed to
19 Norwegian possession of the islands.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol72/iss3/1/
23 QUOTE

24
25 Untied States: American Expansion and Territorial Deannexation
26 Christina Duffy BurnettFollow
27 Start Page
28 797
29 Abstract
30 At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States laid claim to an overseas
31 empire, consolidating its victory in the Spanish-American War by adopting novel
32 structures of colonial rule over a brace of newly acquired island territories. A set of
33 Supreme Court decisions known collectively as the Insular Cases established the legal
34 authorization for this undertaking. As the traditional story goes, they did so by holding that
35 the U.S. Constitution did not "follow the flag" to the recently annexed possessions in the
36 Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea: thus unfettered, an ambitiously imperial nation could
37 attend to the business of governing outre-mer peoples and places without undue attention
38 to the republican niceties that obtained on native soil. This Article argues that this reading
39 of the Insular Cases is fundamentally wrong. That the cases inaugurated an American
40 empire cannot be denied. But they did not do so by creating a "Constitution-free zone"
41 under U.S. sovereignty. Instead, the epochal significance of the cases lies in their careful
42 creation of a new kind of U.S. territory: a domestic territory that could be governed
43 temporarily, and then later, if necessary, be relinquished. This was no small matter for
44 Americans contemplating a global demesne, since the Civil War had, not so long before,
45 inscribed in blood the indivisibility of the Union; in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court
46 ensured that this costly principle would not bind America to its colonial periphery. In sum,
47 the Insular Cases installed a doctrine of territorial deannexation in American constitutional
48 jurisprudence, and in doing so they created the conditions of possibility for an American
49 experiment with colonial governance. The experiment was not, finally, an unqualified
18-11-2023 Page 14 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 15

1 success, but the Insular Cases remain good law, shaping life for more than four million
2 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and the other remaining nonstate possessions, and doing
3 service in recent cases dealing with the extraterritorial applicability of the Constitution. In
4 view of this durable legacy, a properly revised understanding of the Insular Cases is
5 essential.
6 Recommended Citation
7 Burnett, Christina Duffy (2005) "Untied States: American Expansion and Territorial
8 Deannexation," University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 72: Iss. 3, Article 1.
9 Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol72/iss3/1
10 END QUOTE
11
12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea
13 QUOTE
14 At the national level, after being ruled by three external powers since 1884, including
15 nearly 60 years of Australian administration starting during World War I, Papua New
16 Guinea established its sovereignty in 1975. It became an independent Commonwealth
17 realm in 1975 with Elizabeth II as its queen. It also became a member of
18 the Commonwealth of Nations in its own right.
19 END QUOTE
20 And
21 QUOTE
22 History[edit]
23 Main article: History of Papua New Guinea
24 Archaeological evidence indicates that humans first arrived in Papua New Guinea around
25 42,000 to 45,000 years ago. They were descendants of migrants out of Africa, in one of the
26 early waves of human migration. [27] A 2016 study at the University of Cambridge by
27 Christopher Klein et al. suggests that it was about 50,000 years ago that these peoples
28 reached Sahul (the paleocontinent consisting of present-day Australia and New Guinea).
29 The sea levels rose and isolated New Guinea about 10,000 years ago, but Aboriginal
30 Australians and Papuans diverged from each other genetically earlier, about 37,000 years
31 BP.[28] Evolutionary Geneticist Svante Pääbo found that people of New Guinea share 4%–
32 7% of their genome with the Denisovans, indicating that the ancestors of
33 Papuans interbred in Asia with these archaic hominins. [29]
34 Agriculture was independently developed in the New Guinea highlands around 7000 BC,
35 making it one of the few areas in the world where people independently domesticated
36 plants.[30] A major migration of Austronesian-speaking peoples to coastal regions of New
37 Guinea took place around 500 BC. This has been correlated with the introduction of
38 pottery, pigs, and certain fishing techniques.
39 In the 18th century, traders brought the sweet potato to New Guinea, where it was adopted
40 and became a staple food. Portuguese traders had obtained it from South America and
41 introduced it to the Moluccas.[31] The far higher crop yields from sweet potato radically
42 transformed traditional agriculture and societies. Sweet potato largely supplanted the
43 previous staple, taro, and resulted in a significant increase in population in the highlands.
44 Although by the late 20th century headhunting and cannibalism had been practically
45 eradicated, in the past they were practised in many parts of the country as part of rituals
46 related to warfare and taking in enemy spirits or powers. [32][33] In 1901, on Goaribari
47 Island in the Gulf of Papua, missionary Harry Dauncey found 10,000 skulls in the island's
48 long houses, a demonstration of past practices. [34] According to Marianna Torgovnick,
49 writing in 1991, "The most fully documented instances of cannibalism as a social
50 institution come from New Guinea, where head-hunting and ritual cannibalism survived, in
51 certain isolated areas, into the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies, and still leave traces within
52 certain social groups."[35]
18-11-2023 Page 15 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 16

1 END QUOTE
2 And
3 QUOTE
4 Colonialism[edit]

5
6 New Guinea from 1884 to 1919. Germany and Britain controlled the eastern half of New
7 Guinea.
8 The country's dual name results from its complex administrative history before
9 independence. In the nineteenth century, Germany ruled the northern half of the country
10 for some decades, beginning in 1884, as a colony named German New Guinea. In 1914
11 after the outbreak of World War I, Australian forces captured German New Guinea and
12 occupied it throughout the war. After the war, in which Germany and the Central
13 Powers were defeated, the League of Nations authorised Australia to administer this area
14 as a League of Nations mandate territory that became the Territory of New Guinea.
15 Also in 1884, the southern part of the country became a British protectorate. In 1888 it was
16 annexed, together with some adjacent islands, by Britain as British New Guinea. In 1902,
17 Papua was effectively transferred to the authority of the new British dominion of Australia.
18 With the passage of the Papua Act 1905, the area was officially renamed the Territory of
19 Papua, and Australian administration became formal in 1906. In contrast to establishing an
20 Australian mandate in former German New Guinea, the League of Nations determined that
21 Papua was an external territory of the Australian Commonwealth; as a matter of law it
22 remained a British possession. The difference in legal status meant that until 1949, Papua
23 and New Guinea had entirely separate administrations, both controlled by Australia. These
24 conditions contributed to the complexity of organising the country's post-independence
25 legal system.
26 World War II[edit]

27 Australian forces attack Japanese positions during

28 the Battle of Buna–Gona, 7 January 1943.
29 During World War II, the New Guinea campaign (1942–1945) was one of the major
30 military campaigns and conflicts between Japan and the Allies. Approximately 216,000
31 Japanese, Australian, and U.S. servicemen died. [37] After World War II and the victory of
32 the Allies, the two territories were combined into the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
33 This was later referred to as "Papua New Guinea."
34 Independence[edit]
35 The natives of Papua appealed to the United Nations for oversight and independence. The
36 nation established independence from Australia on 16 September 1975, becoming
37 a Commonwealth realm, continuing to share the British monarch as its head of state. It

18-11-2023 Page 16 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 17

1 maintains close ties with Australia, which continues to be its largest aid donor. Papua New
2 Guinea was admitted to membership in the United Nations on 10 October 1975. [38]
3 END QUOTE
4
5 By no means do I even pretend to be an expert in annexation and administration, but it appears to
6 me that from the above the Commonwealth of Australia while administering Papua New Guinea
7 (as to whatever identity it was known from time to time in parts) with Torres Strait Islands it was
8 a different issue as Queensland annexed certain parts and later other parts, this even so above it
9 is claimed that Australia was “administering Torres Strait Islands rather than having annexed it.
10
11 HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. ISAACS.-It is as follows:-
14 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
15 of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
16 property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
17 equal protection of the law.
18 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-That is the Tasmanian amendment.
19 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes, it has been adapted by than Tasmanian Assembly to suit our altered
20 circumstances but I want to point out that it only became necessary to pass that 14th
21 amendment in the United States in order to provide in the Constitution for the change that
22 was wrought by the Civil War. The rights of citizenship for the blacks and the abolition of
23 slavery had been won by hard fighting, and this Article 14 had to be rammed down the
24 throats of the Southern States by the military provision which I referred, to in Sydney.
25 This, together with the 15th article, which goes with it, had to be passed. The object of it
26 was as I have stated, and that was recognised by the United States courts in the case of
27 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 United States Reports, page 303. We can understand that a
28 Constitution should say who shall be citizens of the United States or citizens of the
29 Commonwealth. We can also understand that having constituted a citizenship of the
30 nation, no state should be permitted to abridge that citizenship, and take away any of
31 the privileges or immunities pertaining to citizens. What are these privileges and
32 immunities? That very question was dealt with in what are known as the Slaughter House
33 cases in 1872,16 Wallace, 36, and in certain other cases. This is what the court said-
34 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
35 Constitution, to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon the
36 Government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share
37 its offices, to engage in administering its functions, free access to its sea ports through
38 which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, also to the sub-treasuries, land
39 offices, and courts of justice of the several states. Another privilege of a citizen of the
40 United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal Government for his life,
41 liberty, and property when on the high seas, or within the jurisdiction of a foreign
42 country; the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances; the
43 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the right to use the navigable waters of the United
44 States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several states, and all rights secured
45 to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations; and the right of a citizen of the United
46 States of his own volition to become a citizen of any state of the Union by bona fide
47 residence therein.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Again:
51

18-11-2023 Page 17 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 18

1 We can also understand that having constituted a citizenship of the nation, no state
2 should be permitted to abridge that citizenship, and take away any of the privileges
3 or immunities pertaining to citizens.
4
5 It is therefore very clear that “citizenship” is not related to being a “nationality” at all.
6
7 Do note “and the right of a citizen of the United States of his own volition to become a citizen of
8 any state of the Union by bona fide residence therein.”
9 This means that “citizenship” is not one of the United States of America but rather depending
10 upon which State a person resides and so each state provide for its own laws to govern rights.
11
12 HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term "due
15 process of law"?
16 Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and
17 afford their protection to every citizen.
18 Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.
19 Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?
20 Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
21 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the
22 alteration of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent
23 the alteration of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his
24 life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the
25 Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend
26 its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with
27 citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the
28 Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody
29 who lives within the limits of any State.
30 Mr. SYMON.-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.
31 Mr. OCONNOR.-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by
32 any state if it chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of
33 offences, or particular class of persons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects
34 of some wild impulse on the part of a majority of the community, and unjust laws
35 were passed-
36 Mr. SYMON.-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition?
37 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not
38 necessary to refer to.
39 Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna
40 Charta?
41 Mr. OCONNOR.-What Constitution?
42 Mr. SYMON.-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by
43 an Act of the Federal Parliament?
44 Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the
45 Constitution of the states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact
46 any laws which it thought fit, and even if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna
47 Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only dealing with a possibility, but at the
48 same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might, would be very
49 disastrous, and there is no reason why we should not prevent it.
50 [start page 684]
51 Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate.
52 END QUOTE
18-11-2023 Page 18 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 19

1
2 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
3 QUOTE
4 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
5 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
6 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
7 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
8 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
9 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
10 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
11 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
12 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
13 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
14 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
15 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
16 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 As I (representing myself) successfully pursued in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July 2006
20 “citizenship” is indicating the legal abode of a person and has absolutely nothing to do with
21 nationality!
22
23 Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
24 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
25 All we want to do is to make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of
26 ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist
27 possible invasion from without.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
32 In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be
33 defined under this constitution.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
37 Convention)
38 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
39 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
43 Convention)
44 QUOTE
45 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the
46 following now clause:-
47 The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and
48 residing in any territory of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth,
49 and shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth
50 in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any law abridging any privilege
51 or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any person of life,
52 liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its
53 jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.

18-11-2023 Page 19 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 20

1 Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the
2 purpose-bearing in mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth
3 that its citizens shall not be people of alien races to any considerable extent. There are in
4 India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those 150,000,000 people very few
5 indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act, which I
6 think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted
7 in other colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our
8 shores the natives of India who cannot pass the education test that is applied under
9 the Natal Act. This education test is one which would debar some 149,000,000 at the least
10 out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of Australia. There you
11 have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes far
12 and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think
13 if we took this clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for
14 us.
15 Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by
16 the Right Hon. Sir Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would
17 land us in greater difficulties than anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall
18 be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to define who is in future to be
19 considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day with what
20 we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people
21 of the Commonwealth in this connexion.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
25 Australasian Convention)
26 QUOTE
27 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the
28 Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
29 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony,
30 and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the
31 rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
32 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the
33 aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
34 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
35 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought
36 not to be deducted.
37 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
38 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in
39 reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals
40 vote.
41 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
42 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this
43 matter is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita,
44 if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst
45 if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
46 Clause, as read, agreed to.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
50 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
51 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the
52 parliaments of all the states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs
18-11-2023 Page 20 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 21

1 of the territory of the commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the
2 establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United
3 Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the provisions of
4 this constitution.
5 We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and
6 governments of the several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may
7 desire to see a law established; but we are obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the
8 Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good enough to make the law for
9 us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an opportunity
10 of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the
11 legislatures of Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within
12 Australia, and then parliament of the commonwealth should have that power. It is not
13 proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of the commonwealth to interfere with
14 the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in requesting such
15 legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a
16 parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the
17 Parliament of the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to
18 give the parliament of the commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount
19 jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they exercise those powers, the existing laws shall
20 remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to make laws to the contrary,
21 the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when the federal
22 parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that
23 the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal
24 legislature chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in
25 that way, not interfering with the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks
26 it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some exclusive powers to the legislature of the
27 commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with respect
28 to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general
29 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to
30 the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 However in view of the con-job 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum this now also applies to
34 Aboriginals and cannot be any legislation that is against the “general community”!
35
36 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
39 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
45 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
46 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
47 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
48 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
49 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
53 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
18-11-2023 Page 21 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 22

1 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
2 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
3 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
4 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
10 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
11 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation
12 with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
13 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general
14 community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If
15 it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of
16 saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do
17 that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it
18 means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it should
19 not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
20 particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known
21 instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get
22 hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to
23 Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it
24 will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
25 confines of Victoria at all.
26 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
27 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put
28 them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole
29 community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to
30 have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from passing
31 legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that
32 sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
33 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was
34 to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior
35 races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the
36 Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the
37 Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens,
38 which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth,
39 and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all
40 those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the
41 Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration,
42 but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for
43 them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such
44 laws.
45 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
46 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
47 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
48 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
49 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

18-11-2023 Page 22 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 23

1 QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT.-

2 Can it be suggested, however high the Federal High Court may be in regard to attainments,
3 that under any circumstances the Judges of that court would have the experience, the
4 training, and the knowledge of the men composing the Court of the Privy Council? Would
5 it be possible to separate the members of the Federal High Court from local
6 influences? Unintentionally, men are influenced by their surrounding conditions. It
7 does not follow because a man is to-day in public life as Attorney-General, and to-
8 morrow is sitting on the bench wearing the ermine, that he can dissociate himself or
9 separate himself from local surroundings and be unbiased or uninfluenced by those
10 considerations. Take a case of importance arising here. I admit that our Judges have great
11 learning and extensive knowledge, and I admit the great power and the great strength of
12 our Supreme Courts throughout the various colonies, but I say that they can have no
13 experience equal to the men who occupy positions on the bench of the Privy Council. We
14 are told, however, that the members of the Privy Council do not understand our law, that
15 they do not know our conditions, and that they are unacquainted with local influences.
16 Well, I have always considered that a very trifling matter in fact, I have thought it was a
17 very desirable thing that they did not understand our local conditions, because our laws are
18 not to be interpreted in regard to local conditions, but according to the intent contained
19 within every word in them, apart from local conditions. I have heard men express their
20 astonishment that the Judges of our own Supreme Court have not taken into
21 consideration the Hansard debates when they were giving judgment. I feel quite sure that
22 when an appeal goes to the Privy Council all these considerations are completely wiped
23 out. The members [start page 2290] of the Board of the Privy Council do not consider our
24 local conditions, but interpret our Acts in the words in which they are printed.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
28 QUOTE Captain RUSSELL:
29 The reason why I think we should have a system of federation as loose as possible is this:
30 that all the more outlying portions of Australasia must be allowed to work out their own
31 destinies. When you think that we, in our own colony, have what may be termed a foreign
32 policy, inasmuch as we deal with an alien race, that we have laws very materially affecting
33 them, that the questions of native title are matters of very grave moment, and that any
34 interruption in our relations with those people might be of the most serious
35 importance to the colony, I think you will agree with me that we shall require to see that
36 we have a safeguard in all such respects as these before we submit ourselves to a federal
37 authority. And so, in the colonies of northern Australia, you yourselves may yet find that
38 you have difficulties unforeseen to cope with, It is true that the native races of the more
39 settled portions of Australia have given you but little trouble, and you have dealt with
40 them summarily, but possibly when you go to northern Australia you will find there a
41 race more resolute and more difficult to deal with.
42 Mr. PLAYFORD: No!
43 Captain RUSSELL: Of course I must bow to the wisdom and experience of those who
44 have already had to deal with them; but be that as it may, if New Guinea is ever to become
45 a part of Australasian federation, there, at any rate, is a people that will require to be dealt
46 with most carefully. Yet I have heard no member of the Convention speak on that subject.
47 There is nothing in these resolutions contemplating the possibility that there will be a
48 foreign race to deal with. But consider this difficulty, which I merely outline to you. The
49 great and all-pervading question that occupies men's minds in all parts of the world at the
50 present moment-it is undoubtedly doing so now in Australia, and it is a question more
51 advanced in my own colony than here-is the great social question-what is termed the social
52 upheaval, and I venture to say that every colony must be left to deal with a question like
18-11-2023 Page 23 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 24

1 that. It is a matter for social dealing. It is a matter with which men will deal rather
2 through municipalities than through a great federation in advancing, what I believe it
3 is necessary we should advance, the true liberties and freedom of the people.
4 Therefore, what we want is not the unification of Australasia, but a federation into which
5 all portions of Australasia may be drawn.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
9 QUOTE
10 Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public
11 life. I am an Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I
12 am associated assume a position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
16 QUOTE
17 William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union official
18 and labour movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
19 Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a
20 bootmaker.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
24 QUOTE
25 Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional
26 Convention (1897–98) that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901. His
27 support of Federation was over the objections of many in the labour movement, and served
28 to ameliorate accusations that the Federation Bill had been "wholly shaped in a
29 conservative direction" as accused by the Age.
30 END QUOTE
31 And
32 QUOTE
33 Trenwith was married three times. His first marriage was to Susannah Page on 2 November 1868 and
34 they had four children, a daughter and three sons. Susannah died in 1896. His second marriage was to
35 Elizabeth Bright on 7 April 1896 and they would have three children, a daughter and two sons.
36 Elizabeth died in 1923. His third marriage was to Helen Florence Sinclair on 1 October 1924. [1]
37 Trenwith died in Melbourne on 26 July 1925, aged 79, survived by his third wife and his seven
38 children.[1][8]
39 END QUOTE
40
41 There has been much writings and publications on the internet, etc, as to the Commonwealth of
42 Australia created by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and that of
43 the Commonwealth of Australia as a registered business entity with the District of Columbia and
44 subject to the laws of the USA Congress/
45 Australian electors vote for representatives in to the Federal Parliament but those representatives
46 are then subject to the provisions of Sections 44 & 45 of the constitution. Section 45 is self-
47 executional meaning the moment a Member of Parliament violate Section 44 then by Section 45
48 his/her seat is vacated, And no court judgment is required for this.
49 The moment a Member of Parliament therefore engage with the registered Commonwealth of
50 Australia then this Member of Parliament is no more. Within the provisions of Section 64 the
51 non-Member of Parliament can still be a Minister for maximum 3 months.
52 In view of the conduct of federal Ministers they constitutionally therefore having violated s44 to
53 be part of the registered Commonwealth of Australia are by their own conduct ousted from the
54 Federal Parliament. Both the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate should
18-11-2023 Page 24 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 25

1 enforce this to prevent them to enter any chambers. They have no business to be on the floor in
2 either House.
3 The same with any (prime) Minister who aligns with the Ukraine NAZI government and steals
4 from the Consolidated Revenue Funds, etc, to provide weapons, munition, vehicles, etc, assisting
5 in the genocide of certain people without the Governor-General having pu7blished in the Gazette
6 a DECLARATION OF WAR naming a particular country concern.
7
8 HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
9 Australasian Convention)
10 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
11 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it
12 is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that
13 prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or
14 peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
18 Australasian Convention)
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no
21 desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
22 END QUOTE
23
24 No (prime) Minister has any constitutional powers to authorised Australian troops to go to war
25 unless there is a direct attack upon Australia by enemy forces. Hence, not only Scott Morrison
26 and Anthony Albanese no longer are Members of parliament, but also their collaborators such as
27 the Minister of Defence, the Attorney-General, etc.
28 The same applies to the States (Section 106 “subject to this constitution”) where they are
29 registered with the District of Columbia.
30
31 The word “citizen” in section 44 refers to residing/place of abode in a foreign country nothing to
32 do with “nationality”.
33
34 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
35 QUOTE
36 44 Disqualification
37 Any person who:
38 (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,
39 or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a
40 foreign power; or
41 (ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be
42 sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by
43 imprisonment for one year or longer; or
44 (iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
45 (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
46 payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the
47 Commonwealth; or
48 (v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service
49 of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members
50 of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
51 shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of
52 Representatives.

18-11-2023 Page 25 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 26

1 But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for
2 the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay,
3 half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army,
4 or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the
5 Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the
6 Commonwealth.
7
8 45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification
9 If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
10 (i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or
11 (ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law
12 relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
13 (iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services
14 rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or
15 State;
16 his place shall thereupon become vacant.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Meaning that technically we have no valid Federal/State governments.
20
21 The States are well entitled to deny an undesirable individual to be excluded from its territory
22 such as murderers/ rapist. In my view the High Court of Australia once again appeared to take
23 the side of criminals as I view it did when overruling the deportation of 2 New Zealanders with
24 criminal convictions because they were Aboriginals and could be accepted by Aboriginals in
25 Australia. There is no such constitutional provision for the High Court of Australia to interfere
26 with the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. The judicial power must be limited to deal
27 with failure of following legal procedures and not politicians in black robes pretending to be
28 impartial judges.
29
30 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
32 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
33 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
34 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
35 END QUOTE
36
37 At times court order the incarceration of a person with so to say providing a ‘key to the cell door’
38 meaning that if the prisoner complies with the requirements of a court order then the prisoner can
39 leave the prison. In the USA there was this very famous case where a lawyer was ordered to be
40 incarcerated unless and until he revealed where he had concealed monies (as to pay his ex-wife).
41 For years this lawyer was kept in prison as he claimed he didn’t have any monies as it was all
42 lost. Finally the court appears to have let him to leave the prison. To apply this to any
43 individual, then there can be no indefinite incarceration, this as long as the Federal government
44 permits the person to leave the Commonwealth of Australia then so to say the person has the key
45 to his own prison cell. If the person for whatever reason fails to leave the Commonwealth of
46 Australia then it is his failure to comply that is the cause of incarceration and in my view the
47 High Court of Australia so to say scored an own goal as now any person failing to comply with a
48 court order likewise can argue that the court cannot incarcerate him/her until orders are complied
49 with. Meaning that a term of life imprisonment may also be deemed inhumane and whatever the
50 court may have claimed to argue about the release of the criminals, etc.
51 What the High Court of Australia in my view did was to thumb its nose on the legal
52 principles embedded in the constitution
18-11-2023 Page 26 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 27

1 Again:
2
3 Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
4 QUOTE
5 Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
6 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
7 Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
8 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with
9 the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
10 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship
11 to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little
12 too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the
13 Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I
14 do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of
15 citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
16 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
17 Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
18 Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an
19 inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its
20 borders.
21 Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 I view that it must be clear that we seem at least to me having some woke judiciary that violates
25 the legal principles embedded in the constitution as it deemed fit.
26
27 Again:
28 QUOTE
29 In 1982, Eddie Mabo and four other Torres Strait Islander people from Mer (Murray Island)
30 started legal proceedings to establish their traditional land ownership. Because Mabo was
31 the first-named plaintiff, it became known as the Mabo Case. In 1992, after ten years of
32 hearings before the Queensland Supreme Court and the High Court of Australia, the latter
33 court found that the Mer people had owned their land prior to annexation by
34 Queensland.[15] This ruling overturned the long-established legal doctrine of terra
35 nullius ("no-one's land"), which held that native title over Crown land in Australia had been
36 extinguished at the time of annexation.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Reality is that there was a land council prior to federation and to claim that somehow any failure
40 to resolve matters before federation now could be applied to the whole of the Commonwealth in
41 my view is an absurdity.
42
43 With the government the problem is that Ministers are commissioned to represent all citizens not
44 just their political buddies. As such Ministers must present matters in a clear and honest manner,
45 regardless of their own personal political views and aims. Yet, you find that ACMA appears to
46 blatantly disregard the gross dishonesty/fraud with publications. Take for example “Travelling
47 Pete” (Anthony Albanese) who goes on about “First nations” but then really never sets out what
48 “First Nations” of Australia are about! He merely refers to Aboriginals and Torres Strait
49 Islanders! So, regardless that Torres Strait Islanders were late in Australia, about 1779 when
50 annexed by Queensland and the Dutch were part of what is now Australia but was known as
51 New Holland since 1658 at least when it was claimed for the Dutch government, no specific
52 descendants of the Dutch (as I am born in Rotterdam) have any inclusion in this Voice or other
18-11-2023 Page 27 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 28

1 such kind of committees/representations. The High Court of Australia held that Australia was not
2 TERRA NULLIUS, albeit ignored to mention the Dutch in the process! Where the Dutch were
3 already living in New Holland (as it then was called) in 1656 and claimed it for the Dutch in
4 1658 having named it New Holland in 1606 then surely this was long before Torres Strait
5 Islanders became part of what was then still New Holland.
6
7 As the Dutch claimed in 1658 New Holland then where this was never overruled then the Dutch
8 technically still own New Holland, and never to my knowledge provided for any “land rights”.
9
10 Also, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that Queensland having annexed Torres Strait
11 Islands needed to sort out any land rights that might be claimed prior to federation.
12 The High Court of Australia in MABO however went to revisit this as a “Terra nullius” issue,
13 this even so Dutch law continued to apply.
14
15 The irony and hypocritical conduct of the judges of the High Court of Australia might be shown
16 that to my understanding they were all born as a “Subject of the British Crown” and yet declared
17 that Australians were “Australian citizens” as a nationality. Meaning, they all may have been not
18 qualified to be a judge of the High Court of Australia!
19
20 https://www.australiannationalreview.com/global-issues/dark-emu-exposed-and-the-assault-on-
21 australian-history/
22 Dark Emu Exposed – And the Assault on Australian History
23 QUOTE
24 August 10, 2023
25 ANR News

26
27 Dark Emu Exposed – And the Assault on Australian History
28 By Roger Karge
29 An open letter to Thomas Mayo, signatory to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, author
30 of the Voice to Parliament Handbook and member of the government’s Referendum
31 Working Group.
32 Dear Thomas,
33 I started out as only a ‘soft’ Yes voter in the upcoming referendum. Sure, I wanted to
34 formally ‘recognise’ that Aboriginal peoples had been on this wonderful nation-continent
35 of ours for 50,000 years, but why I wondered, did we need a new ‘power sharing’ Chapter
36 in our Constitution as well?
37 This doubt is what kept my vote as a ‘soft’ Yes.
38 After much reading and listening to the ‘voices’ in this debate, I have now become a very
39 firm No voter.
40 What really convinced me that a No vote was the morally, ethically and politically correct
41 one for me, was a deep study of your advocacy and your own ‘voice’ as you campaigned
42 for a Yes vote in the referendum.
18-11-2023 Page 28 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 29

1 Your writings and speeches, as well as details of your political and personal ‘lived
2 experiences’, are what finally convinced me that a successful Yes vote would be bad for
3 me, my family, my fellow citizens – Indigenous or not – and bad for not only Australia, but
4 for the world as a whole.
5 Let me explain.
6 Is Your Proposed Voice Racist or Just Ethnically Challenging?
7 One of the first responses by strong No vote advocates was that the Voice would be
8 racist – see Andrew Bolt, Peter Dutton’s ‘re-racialization’ speech and the IPA’s ‘Race-has-
9 No-place’ video amongst others.
10 Pro-Voice advocates are sensitive to this criticism. Both Noel Pearson and yourself have
11 sought to deflect the ‘racism’ charge by claiming that the Voice is not about the ‘race’ of
12 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but rather about their ‘indigeneity.’ You and
13 Pearson both stress the fact that ‘your people’ are different because they have ancestors
14 who were here before 26th January 1788, at the founding of modern Australia.
15 Your collegue Noel Pearson wrote in 2019,
16 “Our opponents in the Institute of Public Affairs attempt to put a liberal philosophical
17 sheen on Andrew Bolt’s argument that a First Nations voice would constitute separate
18 treatment on the basis of race in the constitution,” he said. “This argument succeeds only if
19 you ignore the truth that our claim is on the basis of our being indigenous to this country,
20 not on the basis of race. Bolt and the IPA remain steadfastly obscurant on this.” – Source:
21 The Australian, 4 Aug 2019
22 In the film clip below, you also adopt this ‘anti-race’ argument when you claim that
23 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are being selected to the elite membership of the
24 Voice based on their ‘being indigenous’, and due to their having a long association with
25 ‘this place’. You say, ‘it is not about race, it is about our indigenous heritage and culture’.
26 But this is where it gets confusing for an Australian citizen such as myself. The photograph
27 below is of me standing on one of the hills of Athens, with the Parthenon sitting atop the
28 Acropolis in the background. Athens is one of the few cities remaining in the world where
29 the physical presence of the ancients, the Elders of our modernity, can still be felt all
30 around. It is hard not to think of the birth of democracy when one visits Athens.
31 The Athenians ‘kicked-off’ the great democratic project of mankind, such that two and a
32 half thousand years later we find ourselves in Australia with one of the greatest
33 democracies in human history – a democratic project that Australia also contributed to by
34 giving the modern world the ‘secret ballot’, that came to be known as the Australian
35 Ballot, and a democracy that gave the vote to Aboriginal men and women in South
36 Australia before ‘white’ women achieved the vote in other Australian states, the US,
37 Britain and other European countries.
38 But now I find, after studing in depth what you are proposing with your Voice, that the
39 great Australian Democratic Project will be threatened if the Yes campaign wins.
40 Democracy in Classical Athens meant “rule of the people”, in contrast to aristocracy,
41 meaning “rule of an elite”.
42 To my mind, it appears that you wish to insert a new ‘advisory of an elite’, as a new
43 Chapter, into our Constitution.
44 This ‘elite advisory’ will be called the ‘Voice’ and it will consist of members who must
45 have a certain ancestry or DNA, that of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, as a pre-
46 requisite for membership. It will thus be ‘hereditary’ and it may easily become
47 an ‘aristocracy’ given that only 3 percent of Australians will qualify for its membership. It
48 will also be discriminatory in that 97% of Australia’s citizens will be denied membership,
49 through no fault of their own, due to factors over which they have no control or influence
50 such as their choice of DNA.
51 And so here is my dilemma with your Voice proposal.
18-11-2023 Page 29 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 30

1 Until now I was led to believe that, no matter what my ancestry or ethnic background, I
2 had full and equal rights under the law compared to all the other citizens of Australia. We
3 were all of equal citizenship, from the Prime Minister right down to the recently
4 naturalised Sudanese refugee.
5 I was led to believe that my solid European ancestry – with my mother’s heritage going
6 back to an English convict arrival in 1823, and my father’s back to his post war
7 immigration from Germany – would secure for me the exact same Australian citizenry
8 rights as someone like yourself, who claimed to be Australian, but with Torres Strait
9 Islander heritage.
10 This European ancestry of my family’s Australian story is reflected in my DNA (Figure 1).

11
12 Australian Citizen – Roger Karge

13
14 Fig. 1 – Origin of Roger Karge’s family by DNA
15 So here are my questions to you, Mr Mayo.
16 Why should your claimed ‘indigeneity’ provide you with greater citizenship rights than
17 myself?
18 Shouldn’t we both be equal citizens under the law and equal voters under our democracy?
19 Why should you get ‘special’ democratic and political rights as a citizen, based solely on a
20 condition – your DNA and ancestry – over which you have no control and which I cannot
21 change in myself should I wish to obtain those same rights?
22 To explore the differences between us both, a professional genealogist has undertaken a
23 study of your family tree based on the publicly available records and information that you
24 and your other family members have provided publicly. The results of this alleged Family
25 Tree are shown in Figure 2 and I fail to see how your alleged family ancestry should give
26 you any additional democratic and citizenship rights compared to me.
27 With all due respect, your family’s heritage looks pretty much like an ‘immigrant’s’, as
28 mine does. The majority of your father’s ancestors appear to be from Malaysia, the
29 Philippines, Nuie, Vanuatu and Singapore. You also even appear to have German
30 ancestry, just like me.
31 And, like my own mother, your mother appears to be of solid European
32 heritage with ‘Polish, Jewish and English ancestry’, as you have publicly claimed.
18-11-2023 Page 30 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 31

1 Now, I am not denying that the records do seem to suggest that a small number of your 3X
2 great-grandparents on your father’s side may be Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, but
3 our genealogist could not locate any definitive proof that this is the case.

4
5 Australian Citizen – Thomas Mayo

6
7 Figure 2 – Alleged Family Tree of Thomas Mayo[r] based on the publicly available
8 records and information from Thomas Mayo[r] himself and other family
9 members. Download File.jpg here or File.pdf here https://www.dark-emu-
10 exposed.org/s/Thomas-Mayors-Family-Tree-V2.jpg
11 In the preparation of your alleged family tree in Figure 2, research notes running to 58
12 pages were compiled. These research notes, which can be downloaded here, suggest that
13 your family history in most ways is not that different to that of many of us non-Indigenous
14 Australians.
15 Your father’s ancestors appear to be largely ‘colonising immigrants’ from
16 the Philippines and Malaysia who colonised and settled in the Torres Strait Islands in the
17 late 1800s, when the islands were part of the Colony of Queensland. These ancestors of
18 yours appeared to have expressed their own agency by freely coming to the islands
19 while identifying as Filipino or Malays, and who later freely became naturalised as
20 Queenslanders in the 1880’s and later still, swore to, ‘well and truly serve our
21 Sovereign Lord, the King, in the Military Forces of the Commonwealth of Australia’
22 as soldiers during WWII.
23 Other members of your family came as indentured labourers from the Pacific Islands, just
24 like my father did from Germany in 1951 under his assisted passage, work-contract.
25 I do hope, Thomas, that you can now see my point of view – that your Voice proposal is
26 deeply unfair to your fellow citizens.
18-11-2023 Page 31 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 32

1 The only real difference between you and me is that you claim that some of your
2 distant ancestors were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and therefore you want
3 to claim special citizen rights.
4 This will inevitably result in ‘push-back’ by many Australians who will clamour for a firm,
5 legislated definition of ‘who is Indigenous’, especially given the apparent rise in the
6 number of ‘fake Aboriginals’, many examples of whom you will find on this Dark Emu
7 Exposed website.
8 As the astute legal commentator Chris Merritt has observed,
9 ‘the last thing we want in this country are race laws, race tribunals determining who is
10 an Aborigine and who is not. I don’t think we want to go there … you take a wrong turn
11 and you abandon the equality of citizenship and you hit all this nonsense. Race laws are
12 just an abomination and they should form no part of the Australian statute.’ – (Listen to
13 Chris Merritt in the film clip below).
14 Thomas, do you really want Australia to progress to the next logical step of DNA testing
15 (see Figure 3) to determine indigeneity, given that the benefits of being a member of the
16 Voice and its bureaucracy will most certainly lead to an influx of fakes?
17 How are we going to identify and weed-out these fakes otherwise?
18 The Voice proposal is un-Australian, wrong in principle and contrary to all that we, as
19 equal citizens of a free democracy, have achieved since Federation.
20 You would be very wise Thomas to reconsider your advocacy for the Voice.
21 Yours sincerely, Roger Karge
22 Editor, Dark Emu Exposed website

23
24
25 Figure 3 – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander DNA testing is possible at Ancestry.com
26 Opinion pieces don’t necessarily reflect the position of our news site but of our Opinion
27 writers.
28 Original Source: Dark Emu Exposed – And the Assault on Australian History
29 https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/thomas-and-me-part-1
30 END QUOTE
31
32 States do not have any legislative, executive and/or administrative powers as to Voice, First
33 Nation or whatever they may use regarding any race.

18-11-2023 Page 32 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 33

1
2 The purported Native Title Act (Cth) is not a constitutional valid legislation at all, this, because
3 the Commonwealth can only legislate for the whole of the Commonwealth and prohibited to
4 legislate against the “general community” when it comes to race legislation. As such all and any
5 purported judicial decision regarding “native title” is and remains to be ULTRA VIRES Ab
6 Initio!
7
8 I expect that in the end this will end up in civil war as it must be clear the U.N. has been pushing
9 the 1967 ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum not for some alleged peaceful solution but rather as I
10 view it did with the Israelis – Palestinian issue to sow conflict so it can then gain power.
11 Meaning this is precisely contrary to the original purpose the U. N. (United Nations) was created
12 for.
13 One should check out the United Nations 18 August 1947 statement where it in a sickening
14 manner makes known how the Israelis and Palestinian conflict will go on for a long time. It was
15 clearly created to cause war mongering and not at all to avoid bloodshed. Indeed, considering
16 what was to be the real purpose for which the U.N. was set up it shows it acted contrary to it all
17 along.
18 It then got involved with this Aboriginal claimed land rights movement, as to stir division and
19 use this to grab powers and so ownership of Australia land.
20
21 Despite ongoing claims about “indigenous Aboriginals” and “traditional owners” reality is that
22 the Framers of the Constitution only twice mentioned the word “indigenous” and also only twice
23 used the word “traditional” and not in regard of Aboriginals at all during the 1890, 1891, 1897
24 and 1898 debates as I quote below in the context it was used:
25
26 Quick&Garran-fed0014

27
28
29 THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION:
30 A FIRST READING
31 John Kilcullen
32 Macquarie University
33 Copyright (c), 2000, 2004. R.J. Kilcullen.
34 QUOTE
35 In British history the royal prerogative (which was never absolute and unlimited) shrank as
36 Parliament made laws, because the Courts accepted that laws made by parliament overrode
37 the traditional common law. It would be possible to alter the extent of the royal
38 prerogative by simple Parliamentary legislation, without any need for a constitutional
39 amendment. (For example, Parliament could--in my opinion should--make laws that the

18-11-2023 Page 33 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 34

1 Parliament must approve overseas deployment of Australian troops and must approve
2 treaties. Such laws would not require constitutional amendment.)
3 END QUOTE
4
5 The Framers of the Constitution however made it very clear:
6
7 Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
8 QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
9 The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs,
10 among which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign
11 countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could
12 only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the
13 Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for
14 and on behalf of its citizens.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Meaning, that the Commonwealth cannot implement by law any treaty that deals with matters
18 beyond its constitutional powers, such as education, and neither where such treaty would be
19 adverse to the constitutional rights of Australians. As for the deployment of Australians soldiers,
20 etc, where this were to amount to be involved in war mongering such as the Ukraine NAZI
21 government genocide then this is unconstitutional as was the invasions into Iraq, Afghanistan,
22 etc. In my view R.J. Kilcullen simply doesn’t know what he is talking about!
23
24 Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
25 QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD:
26 I only do what I am sure every member of the Convention does, and that is to offer a most
27 fervent prayer that whatever form of election may be decided upon the men appointed will
28 be worthy of the high position to which they will be raised. Let them appoint them how
29 they will, I, sir, from a long experience of a particular house, know that when they enter
30 the chamber they will come under its traditional influence: they will recognise the
31 responsibility of their position, and the greater the responsibility and the higher the stan-
32 [start page 171] dard which you expect these men to reach the more certain will you be to
33 get the best men.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Hansard 15-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Is that argument-the mere expression of opinion that people belong
39 to the old school?
40 Dr. COCKBURN.-Well, the development of Australia is not going to take place by a
41 continuation of the policy of the old school. This is a new country, and its resources could
42 never be developed by carrying out the traditional policy of an old country. However, if I
43 am involved in any such statement as the honorable member has attributed to me, I am not
44 unwilling to express my approval of the action of the honorable member in calling my
45 attention to the fact.
46 Mr. HIGGINS.-The strongest free traders have never been against bounties.
47 Dr. COCKBURN.-My experience of free-traders has been that, when it was a question
48 of passing protectionist duties, they have said-"Oh, give us bounties instead," as a means of
49 defeating the protectionist duties proposed, but when taken at their word, and bounties
50 were substituted, their opposition was equally pronounced.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 Hansard 18900212U Debates
18-11-2023 Page 34 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 35

1 QUOTE Mr. BIRD

2 That measure might easily be amended so as to render it more suitable to the existing
3 needs. I am aware that our venerable friend, Sir Henry Parkes, has told the world in a
4 memorandum of his that there is no man or political party in New South Wales influential
5 enough to induce that colony to join the Federal Council-as it exists, I presume. But
6 possibly some slight alterations might make it acceptable even to our New South Wales
7 friends; and if that measure, with a little improvement, would meet the needs of our time, it
8 would be better, perhaps, to seek to bring into existence a union on such a basis as that
9 affords, rather than some new-blown Constitution, which will not be, as Dr. Cockburn
10 says, the gradual growth from our people and their existing conditions, but an exotic
11 transplanted from Canadian or American soil, and which possibly might not flourish so
12 well here as would an indigenous product.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. FRASER: For services rendered. The bounties that are now being given, and are
18 under promise to be given, should be protected. But I do not think any further provision
19 should be made, because we are yielding to the Federal Parliament the right to establish
20 Customs duties and bounties. It is not to be thought of that the Federal Parliament will not
21 do its duty to the nation, because it would be impossible for the local Parliaments and the
22 Federal Parliament to be doing one and the same thing. The local Parliaments will under
23 this Bill waive their rights to give bounties, and the Federal Parliament must of course be
24 assumed to assist in all matters for the national good. Therefore I agree with my friend Mr.
25 Reid that you cannot have the States doing what we are going to vest in the Federal
26 Parliament. Surely the Federal Parliament will in every way possible assist those industries
27 which are indigenous to the various States. It can easily be arranged. A sum of money-say
28 half a million sterling-can be applied for the purpose, and equally distributed over the
29 whole colonies. Moreover, I suppose that each colony can apply some of the proportion of
30 Customs duties that it will get to support its industries. Further than that I do not think the
31 clause ought to go.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for
35 the intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27 \99)
36
37 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its
38 words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any
39 meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing
40 facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
41 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
42
43 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17
44 June 1999)
45 QUOTE
46 Constitutional interpretation
47 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
48 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes
49 or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those
50 who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its
51 makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in
52 which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
18-11-2023 Page 35 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 36

1 Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my

2 opinion[53]:
3 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
4 authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have
5 called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of
6 people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an
7 historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking
8 or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the
12 Constitution.
13 Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
14
15 YOU MUST SEE THIS ONE
16 Gil May <[email protected]>
17 To:[email protected]
18 Bcc:[email protected]
19 Sun, 24 Sept at 9:15 am
20 QUOTE
21 YOU MUST SEE THIS.
22 THE REASON TO VOTE NO — A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FACTS
23 Aboriginal History & Culture Revealed
24 In recent years, various aspects of Australian history and culture have faced critical
25 scrutiny from Activists and members of the press, who align themselves with an
26 agenda of weaponising Aboriginal rights as a way to discredit Australian History. In
27 this video we explore the fabrication of Aboriginal history and culture.
28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hEsYW_1vxY
29 Fully explained in a soon to be released book ‘The ‘UNKNOWN’ History of Australia’.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 Federal agencies spent nearly $40,000 on 'Welcome to Country' ceremonies
33 Gil May <[email protected]>
34 To:[email protected]
35 Bcc:[email protected]
36 Tue, 26 Sept at 11:51 am
37 QUOTE
38 Federal agencies spent nearly $40,000 on 'Welcome to Country' ceremonies over the
39 last financial year, outlaid significantly more than 'appropriate' fee
40 A Sky News Australia investigation found the average departmental spend was
41 between $533 and $933 per ceremony, significantly higher than the $350 the ACT
42 Government advises on its website to be an “appropriate” fee for the events.
43
44 Figures obtained by Sky News reveal tens of thousands of dollars are spent every year by
45 departments on this modern cococted Indigenous practice.
46 The Albanese government has been accused of not being transparent with taxpayers over
47 departmental spending on Welcome to Country ceremonies.
48 Figures obtained by Sky News Australia reveal almost $40,000 was spent by about half of
49 government departments in the past financial year, while the public broadcaster alone spent
50 more than $7,000 on the Indigenous practice.
51 The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations spent the most - $14,261 on 14
52 Welcome to Country ceremonies, three smoking ceremonies and three combined
18-11-2023 Page 36 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 37

1 ceremonies, according to responses provided to questions on notice from the recent Budget
2 Estimates.
3 The Department of Home Affairs spent $11,887 on 15 Welcome to Country ceremonies.
4 The Department of the Treasury spent $2,950, while the Department of Parliamentary
5 Services, Department of Finance, Department of the Senate and Department of Climate
6 Change, Energy, the Environment and Water spent between $1,600 and $2,800 each.
7 The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
8 and Forestry said they could not provide the figures. Other departments did not provide a
9 response.
10 The ABC said it could only provide an “estimated expenditure” of $7,134.
11 One chap told Luke Grant 2GB 26-9-23 he was paid $1300 to $1500 and likely done 700
12 cereonies = $980,00 for a concocted ceremony made up by Ernie Dingo in 1976
13 and Richard Whalley, of the Middar Aboriginal Theatre, invented the “welcome to
14 country” in 1976 because two pairs of Maori visitors from NZ and the Cook Islands
15 wanted an equivalent of their own traditional ceremony before they would dance at the
16 Perth International Arts Festival.
17 This fact is admitted by Ernie Dingo and supported by a press statement from
18 aboriginal Bess Price, Former NT Minister for Community Services.
19 This absolute baloney is supported by government insulting the Parliament and the
20 people every time it is used. The sadness is the gullibly and stupidity of the people
21 who swallowed it.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/court-halts-woodside-s-seismic-testing-
25 expedites-legal-row-20230914-p5e4r7.html
26 Court halts Woodside's seismic testing, expedites legal row - WAtoday
27 14 Sept 2023 ... 1 min. The Federal Court has issued an injunction preventing Woodside Energy
28 from conducting seismic testing for its $16.5 billion ...
29
30 https://www.9news.com.au/national/woodside-loses-court-challenge-traditional-owner-seismic-
31 blasting-scarborough-gas-field/072b3b8b-f008-482d-9fea-3ae7d4ce5ef1
32 Traditional owner wins legal challenge to stop Woodside's seismic ...
33 1 day ago ... Mardudhunera woman Raelene Cooper has won a Federal Court challenge,
34 halting Woodside's seismic blasting pl ... 1 / 23. ><. Sony investigates ...
35
36 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/traditional-owners-prevent-sea-projects-from-commencing/ar-
37 AA1hoikO?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=03f04dceeb9b4d2abe37647e71ca13e2&ei=25
38 Sky News Australia
39 'Traditional owners' prevent sea projects from commencing
40 QUOTE
41 Sky News host Andrew Bolt says Australian laws might need “re-writing” due to
42 traditional owners being able to stop projects far out at sea.
43 Raelene Cooper claimed she wasn’t consulted enough about Woodside Energy's seismic
44 testing and expressed concern over what it would do to the whale songlines.
45 Woodside told the federal court it had never been told of any whale songline in the area of
46 its project until it read an affidavit from Ms Cooper.
47 Mr Bolt sat down with former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce to discuss the
48 Indigenous custodian's court win.
49 “Look, when so-called traditional owners, can stop projects far out at sea, claiming it’s
50 going to hurt a whale songline, or a rainbow serpent, surely our laws need re-writing," he
51 said.
52 END QUOTE
53
18-11-2023 Page 37 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 38

1 Many Aboriginals may have the same genes as I have pending my ancestors operating ships and
2 may have become involved in siring children in New Holland.
3
4 Are we next going to have this crazy conduct that persons of Tuvalu are going to be deemed
5 “First Nations”?
6
7 Are we going to have those of Papua New Guinea also to be deemed part of “First nations”?
8
9 And well why not those before Aboriginals migrated to what is now known as Australia like the
10
11 In any event, the 65,000 claim by Thomas Mayo appears to me to be absurd.
12
13 https://cairnsnews.org/2023/04/17/foi-reply-reveals-the-voice-will-enable-a-treaty-which-will-
14 take-a-large-portion-of-gnp-and-rent-from-all-white-australians-and-abolish-
15 flag/?replytocom=461397#respond
16 FOI reply reveals the Voice will enable a Treaty which will take a large portion of GDP
17 and rent from all white Australians and abolish flag
18 QUOTE

19 Peter Campion
20 April 19, 2023 at 6:28 pm
21 From Keith Windschuttle’s books, the current aboriginal people are almost all
22 Carpentarians, close relatives of Sri Lanka’s Vedda people, who came here across the ice-
23 age land bridge where the Torres Strait is now ~15,000 years ago.
24 Before them where the Murraysians (~25,000 years ago).
25 Before them where the Negritoes (~40,000 years ago).
26 Surviving in arid ice-age Australia was tough.
27 The Negritoes ate the mega-fauna, which ended any chance of harnessing animal power for
28 farming and any chance of developing an agrarian society in Australia.
29 The Murraysians ate the Negritoes.
30 The Carpentarians ate the Murraysians.
31 Then they ate each other.
32 See ethnographer Carl Lumholtz’s excellent book from his experience in NQ in the 1880s
33 on his journey beginning on the Herbert River, “Among Cannibals: Four Years Travels in
34 Australia and of Camp Life with the Aborigines of Queensland”, free download from
35 archive.org here –
36 https://ia800900.us.archive.org/28/items/amongcannibalsa00lumhgoog/amongcannibalsa0
37 0lumhgoog.pdf
38 Everyone has a history of displacing others, and everyone has 60,000 years of culture.
39 Therefore everyone should be treated the same under the law.
40 No exceptions.
41 Ever.
42 “BTW, they DID invent the boomerang – that’s got to be worth some credit.”
43 I can’t find the link at the moment, but there exists convincing arguments that the
44 boomerang was technology brought here by ancient Egyptians.
45 They’ve been found in the tombs of some ancient kings and there was an ancient Egyptian
46 navigator who went on a world discovery tour thousands of years before Cook, whose
47 name eludes me at present…
48 END QUOTE
49
50 What ‘First Nations’?
51
18-11-2023 Page 38 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 39

1 The Murraysians ate the Negritoes.

2 The Carpentarians ate the Murraysians.
3 Then they ate each other.
4
5 And then came others such as the Aboriginals, who despite claims by “Travelling Pete”
6 (Anthony Albanese) they weren’t around 65,000 odd years ago!
7 Now Wikipedia claim “indigenous Australians when I understand none ar
8 e alive!
9 Consider also information at:
10
11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
12 Indigenous Australians
13
14 https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/the-real-agenda-behind-the-
15 voice?r=yhmq1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR2K1Rjjx2fJ97j7z-
16 8wnKjGInVt9me969ruJnLb7ElkR91mN9sPjTA1lJ8
17 THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT: Exposing the
18 Globalist's Plan to Steal Australian Farmlands and Regional Land
19 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vows, "I'm here to change the country." It is not a vow,
20 but a threat.
21 QUOTE
22 We sons and daughters of past Colonialist-expansionism (and immigration) are being
23 asked to relinquish our guard, to atone for ancestral wrongdoings, and to blithely
24 accept the “gift of a Voice” on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples. It is being handed to
25 us to hand to them: our vote; our consent. Should the referendum be successful,
26 should it be ratified and written into our Australian Constitution —it will cede all
27 perceived sovereignty of the First Nations Peoples (as many Tribal Elders have
28 already determined). Their multifarious voices will be muted and reduced to a
29 singular controlled Voice; and, consequently, a token “Aboriginal Parliament” will
30 speak on their collective behalf.
31 Such a Voice will certainly not speak for them. However, it will justify itself, and
32 further its hidden purpose by legally speaking through them. Cunningly, the
33 ventriloquist will be the shadow board of the Corporatocracy (rule by corporate
34 interests) that truly governs Australia, and the collective jaw of the “Blak Voice” will
35 move according to their plundering pursuits and their ‘Great Reset’ vision.
36 We currently do not have our own representative Voice in any parliament. Our
37 Australian Federal Parliament, our Prime Minister and all State Premiers are
38 completely captured, compromised, and entirely incapable of speaking on behalf of
39 any Australian. These political bureaucrats speak, and act, only in accord with the
40 boardroom business objectives of the Transnational Corporatocracy that owns them.
41 They are all owned and inexorably controlled.
42 Moreover, Australia is entirely owned, and the people truly have no actual
43 democratic representation. Thus, it is absurd to assume that our captured Federal
44 Parliament could facilitate the constitutional recognition of a genuinely autonomous
45 Indigenous Voice that represents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The
46 decision to invest upwards of $235 million of Australian taxpayer’s dollars in
47 promoting and staging the Voice Referendum is ultimately a shrewd business
48 decision. It is expected to pay off.

18-11-2023 Page 39 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 40

1 Australia is a Corporatocracy: ruled and owned by corporations. Perhaps Benito

2 Mussolini defined it best with his ideological glorification of Corporatism: 'Fascism
3 should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and
4 corporate power.'A Corporatocracy makes ruthless business decisions to maximise
5 profit and expansion, and to ensure an unassailable position of self-preservation and
6 dominance into perpetuity. We are nation owned by the interests of an undisclosed
7 consortium of oligarchical elites, and their various transnational megacorporations.
8 Our nation is basically a shop front, open for business, and sinisterly outfitted to
9 maximise capitalistic profit and plunder at our expense. We are both customers, and
10 commodities for the harvesting, and the culling.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Pauline Hanson’s One Nation <[email protected]>
14 To:Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
15 Fri, 18 Aug at 4:55 pm
16 QUOTE
17 Dear Gerrit,
18 The Freedom of Speech debate has hit fever pitch this week, as it emerges big tech is
19 censoring legitimate and factually correct ‘No’ campaigners opposing Labor's racist and
20 divisive ‘Voice’.
21 Albo's Admission Fuels Debate 📣
22 The Prime Minister has confessed that he hadn't
23 fully read the Uluru Statement before endorsing it.
24 This revelation has sparked debates on misinformation and misrepresentation.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Video:
28 “Did he really say that just had this sent to me. Very controversial. By Steve Dickson -
29 QLD-Albanesae-UN will control all land”
30 QUOTE

31

32
33 END QUOTE

18-11-2023 Page 40 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 41

1
2 https://www.globalresearch.ca/day-australian-sovereignty-
3 died/5827592?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
4 The Day Australian Sovereignty Died
5 QUOTE
6 If a date might be found when Australian sovereignty was extinguished by the emissaries of
7 the US imperium, July 29, 2023 will be as good as any. Not that they aren’t other
8 candidates, foremost among them being the announcement of the AUKUS agreement
9 between Australia, UK and the US in September 2021. They all point to a surrender, a
10 handing over, of a territory to another’s military and intelligence community, an abject,
11 oily capitulation that would normally qualify as treasonous.
12 The treason becomes all the more indigestible for its inevitable result: Australian
13 territory is being shaped, readied, and purposed for war under the auspices of closer
14 defence ties with an old ally. The security rentiers, the servitors, the paid-up pundits
15 all see this as a splendid thing. War, or at least its preparations, can offer wonderful
16 returns.
17 END QUOTE
18 And
19 QUOTE
20 “The permanent American military presence on Australian soil is now at a scale
21 unprecedented since the Second World War.” While the US-Australian relationship had
22 previously stressed the value of deterrence, the focus seemed increasingly on the
23 “projection” of power. “The change from the mid-1990s has been nothing short of
24 staggering.”
25 The most striking matter in this whole business was the utter absence of
26 parliamentary outrage in Canberra. There was no registered protest, no red mist
27 rage in the streets, and no debate to speak off, nor even an eloquent funeral oration.
28 You might even say that AUSMIN 2023 was one of history’s most successful coups,
29 implemented in plain sight by all too willing collaborators. Its victim, Australian
30 sovereignty, has been laid to rest.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 On 17 November 2023 I happen to hear over the car radio that after Joe Biden had his meeting
34 with President Xi of China he subsequently allegedly told reporters that President Xi is a
35 dictator. I then heard (prime) Minister Albanese to state that they have different political
36 systems. Well, he seems to me to play a game of being smart when he doesn’t appear to me to
37 even understand/comprehend that he is no longer a (prime) Minister after what I viewed his
38 TREASON in various ways. For sure I may personally disapprove of certain internal Chinese
39 conduct but this doesn’t mean that President Xi is a dictator. In my view Albanese might be
40 more suited to be deemed a dictator.
41
42 https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/
43 The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian
44 QUOTE
45 “Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to
46 serve our need for mass colonization.”
47 END QUOTE
48 And
49 QUOTE
50 We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us
51 than step down from the stage of history! Isn’t there a “nuclear bondage” theory? It means
52 that since nuclear wepaons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together
53 if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate of
18-11-2023 Page 41 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 42

1 our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will
2 be finished, and the world will be finished
3 END QUOTE
4 And
5 QUOTE
6 We need to liberate them. Second, after solving the “issue of America,” the western
7 countries of Europe would bow to us, not to mention Taiwan, Japan and other small
8 countries. Therefore, solving the “issue of America” is the mission assigned to the CCP
9 members by history.
10 END QUOTE
11 And
12 QUOTE
13 Instead, when revising the Constitution this time, for the first time we clearly
14 specified “March of the Volunteers” is our national anthem. Thus we will understand
15 why we constantly talk loudly about the “Taiwan issue” but not the “American
16 issue.” We all know the principle of “doing one thing under the cover of another.” If
17 ordinary people can only see the small island of Taiwan in their eyes, then you as the
18 elite of our country should be able to see the whole picture of our cause. Over these
19 years, according to Comrade Xiaoping’s arrangement, a large piece of our territory
20 in the North has been given up to Russia; do you really think our Party Committee is
21 a fool?
22 To resolve the issue of America we must be able to transcend conventions and restrictions.
23 In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could
24 not kill all the people in the conquered land because back then you could not kill people
25 effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns. Therefore, it
26 was impossible to gain a stretch of land without keeping the people on that land. However,
27 if we conquered America in this fashion, we would not be able to make many people
28 migrate there.
29 Only by using special means to “clean up” America will we be able to lead the
30 Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us. This is not a matter of
31 whether we are willing to do it or not. What kind of special means is there available
32 for us to “clean up America”?
33 Conventional weapons such as fighters, canons, missiles and battleships won’t do; neither
34 will highly destructive weapons such as nuclear weapons. We are not as foolish as to
35 want to perish together with America by using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that
36 we have been exclaiming that we will have the Taiwan issue resolved at whatever cost.
37 Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to
38 reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern
39 biological technology, and new bio-weapons have been invented one after another. Of
40 course, we have not been idle, in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master
41 weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of “cleaning up” America
42 all of a sudden.
43 END QUOTE
44 And
45 QUOTE
46 From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and
47 persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese
48 people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony,
49 because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy
50 does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to
51 “clean up” America and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical
52 experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do
18-11-2023 Page 42 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 43

1 anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other
2 enemies have to surrender to us.
3 Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do
4 not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present
5 land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computation of
6 the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure
7 would be more than 800 million people!
8 END QUOTE
9 And
10 QUOTE
11 If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack, the Chinese people will be
12 able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
15 QUOTE
16 Here some people may want to ask me: What about the several millions of our
17 compatriots in the United States? They may ask: aren’t we against Chinese killing
18 other Chinese?
19 These comrades are too pedantic; they are not pragmatic enough. If we had insisted
20 on the principle that the Chinese should not kill other Chinese, would we have
21 liberated China? As for the several million Chinese living in the United States, this is
22 of course a big issue. Therefore, in recent years, we have been conducting research on
23 genetic weapons, i.e., those weapons that do not kill yellow people. But producing a
24 result with this kind of research is extremely difficult.
25 END QUOTE
26 And
27 QUOTE
28 Of the research done on genetic weapons throughout the world, Israel is the most
29 advanced. Their genetic weapons are designed to target Arabs and protect the Israelis. But
30 even they have not reached the stage of actual deployment. We have cooperated with Israel
31 on some research. Perhaps we can introduce some of the technologies used to protect
32 Israelis and remold these technologies to protect the yellow people.
33 END QUOTE
34 And
35 QUOTE
36 Therefore, we have to give up our expectations about genetic weapons. Of course, from
37 another perspective, the majority of those Chinese living in the United States have become
38 our burden, because they have been corrupted by the bourgeois liberal values for a long
39 time and it would be difficult for them to accept our Party’s leadership. If they survived the
40 war, we would have to launch campaigns in the future to deal with them, to reform them.
41 END QUOTE
42 And
43 QUOTE
44 It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only
45 path that will secure a Chinese century in which the CCP leads the world.
46 END QUOTE
47 And
48 QUOTE
49 If you get on the website using key words to search, you will find out that a while ago
50 comrade He Xin pointed out to the Hong Kong Business News during an interview
51 that: “The U.S. has a shocking conspiracy.” According to what he had in hand, from
52 September 27 to October 1, 1995, the Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev Foundation,
53 funded by the United States, gathered 500 of the world’s most important statesmen,
18-11-2023 Page 43 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 44

1 economic leaders and scientists, including George W. Bush (he was not the U.S.
2 president at the time), the Baroness Thatcher, Tony Blair, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as
3 well as George Soros, Bill Gates, futurist John Naisbitt, etc., all of the world’s most
4 popular characters, in the San Francisco Fairmont hotel for a high-level roundtable
5 conference, discussing problems about globalization and how to guide humanity to
6 move forward into the 21st century. According to what He Xin had in hand, the
7 outstanding people of the world in attendance thought that in the 21st century a mere
8 20 percent of the world’s population will be sufficient to maintain the world’s
9 economy and prosperity, the other 80 percent or 4/5ths of the world’s population will
10 be human garbage unable to produce new values. The people in attendance thought
11 that this excess 80 percent population would be a trash population and “high-tech”
12 means should be used to eliminate them gradually.
13 Since the enemies are secretly planning to eliminate our population, we certainly
14 cannot be infinitely merciful and compassionate to them. Comrade He Xin’s article
15 came out at the right time, it has proven the correctness of our tit for tat battle
16 approach … [and] Comrade Deng Xiaoping’s great foresight to deploy against the
17 United States military strategy.
18 Certainly, in spreading Comrade He Xin’s views, we cannot publish the article in the Party
19 newspapers, in order to avoid raising the enemy’s vigilance. He Xin’s conversation may
20 remind the enemy that we have grasped the modern science and technology, including
21 “clean” nuclear technology as well as biological weapons technology, and we can use
22 powerful measures to eliminate their population on a large scale.
23 END QUOTE
24 And
25 QUOTE
26 Now, it seems like we are in the same critical period as the “horses were drinking
27 water” in the Yangtze River days in the revolutionary era, as long as we resolve the
28 United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved.
29 Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan but in fact is
30 aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking
31 aircraft carriers or satellites.
32 END QUOTE
33 And
34 QUOTE
35 Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of China’s century. As war
36 approaches, I am full of hope for our next generation.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Whatever “General Chi Haotian” stated ought to be a warning as to possible intend however,
40 this must not be perceived that China is an enemy. Our home grown enemies/traitors that occupy
41 our courts and seats in the Parliaments, as well as their collaborators being the media, medical
42 doctors, scientist and police and even the militairy may be the “key” for enemy forces to
43 succeed. It appears to me that “General Chi Haotian” makes clear that killing people of
44 Chinese descent is not a problem to him. However, is not an exemption because our own
45 politicians, well most of them, are in the thick of mass murdering Australians besides the harm
46 inflicted upon other victims, such as the covid scam! As such, even without “General Chi
47 Haotian” intentions we have ample of traitors such as judges, politicians, those in the medical
48 profession and police force, as well as in the military who seems to be more than “General Chi
49 Haotian” willing to betray Australians. It are those who are the real ground zero of national
50 security problems.
51

18-11-2023 Page 44 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 45

1 "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
2 within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners
3 openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
4 through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears
5 not a traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their
6 garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the
7 soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a
8 city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be
9 feared." Cicero, 42 B.C
10
11 I wrote in the past that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that Australians liberty was no
12 less than that of the American’s.
13
14 Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 Australasian Convention)
16 QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
17 Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time
18 some secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular
19 occasion when possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public
20 question. There have been no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most
21 perfect freedom to express their opinions in public, and through their representatives in
22 parliament, on any public question of importance. There has never been any occasion when
23 such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this country, and so free and liberal
24 are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested by any mortal upon
25 this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary, we all feel
26 proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not
27 surpassed in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 At that time the USA had already 15 Amendments and so it must be deemed that the freedoms in
31 those 15 Amendments also apply to the Commonwealth of Australia. The 2 nd Amendment being
32 that one can bear a gun. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that citizens may
33 have to defend themselves and others when there is a foreign enemy invasion. Well, for that one
34 needs to have weapons. Also, where the registered Commonwealth of Australia is subject to the
35 USA Congress then also its constitutional provisions applies to the registered Commonwealth of
36 Australia including the 2nd Amendment.
37 In Queensland we had that 3 people of one family were killed (murdered) by the Queensland
38 Police after they defended their property from armed trespassers, who despite signs to prohibit
39 entry nevertheless trespassed upon the property. And in Victoria I now had that despite various
40 signs ENTRY PROHIBITED Banyule City Council trespassed on 6 September 2023 upon the
41 land and again on 7 September 2023 by trespassing also twice upon my neighbours property and
42 subsequently then also trespassed upon my (18-11-2023) 91 year old wife registered motor
43 vehicle that was lawfully parked by vandalising it. Its lawyers claimed that by the fire rescue
44 provisions (Section 32) they can enter the property, just that there was no fire (that is required by
45 the legislation) and no Fire Rescue Victoria was involved at all. In my view it was a continuation
46 of “political persecution” that has been going on for more than a decade and it was precisely
47 what I all along expected. I now desire to also nail the lawyers involved acting for Banyule City
48 Council for instead acknowledging that Banyule City Council had been trespassing they now
49 seek to pretend some legal provision to justify what they did. In the meantime my wife who
50 already suffers from known heart failure and other comorbidities and was just recovering from a
51 skin issue having discovered that Banyule City Council (as it acknowledged itself having down
52 so) vandalised her lawfully parked and registered motor vehicle as well as trespassed upon our
18-11-2023 Page 45 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 46

1 land suffered from considerable stress that further undermined her immune system and well she
2 is now having to use a wheelchair.
3 After I in 2017 exposed the Victorian Police involvement in regard of the murder of Carl
4 Williams subsequently a former police officer and his staff vandalised a new fence I was
5 building within my property boundary. While I reported the matter to the Victorian Police they
6 did nothing about it. As such, knowing that my former political opponent who was unlawfully
7 using as a councillor of Banyule City Council staff against me I am well aware that to now report
8 matters to the Victorian Police will get me nowhere. So, I am using my knowledge to pursue
9 matters differently, albeit within the rule of law.
10 Banyule City Council was also supporting the Voice and well I criticised them for misusing
11 property owner’s monies for this. And a lot more, and so this “political persecution” was
12 expected but for them to have targeted my wife’s motor vehicle and by this also causing harm
13 upon her, as well as the trespassing upon the property on 2 days, means they are making the case
14 worse by themselves by refusing to act in a reasonable manner. Councils usually know they can
15 get away with whatever as they hide behind the usage of monies of property owners and so
16 shielding themselves from any consequences whereas usually the property owner can be out of
17 pocket severely, and this is why I am determine to turn the tables on them and let them face the
18 legal consequences. I now have declined to pay their unconstitutional “State land taxation”
19 referred to as “council rates” and this means they would have to litigate against me to even try to
20 get anything. Well, the AEC in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka lost both cases against me despite 9
21 Attorney-Generals all served with the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER, and well
22 Banyule City Council/ Buloke Shire Council will discover that they too will face defeat.
23
24 We have councillors using monies purportedly obtained as “council rates” (State land Taxation)
25 to give tens of thousands of dollars to private organisations, this also I view is unlawful.
26
27 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=1
28 QUOTE
29 Travesty of public purpose
30
31 State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
32
33 IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite
34 developments. In Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected
35 farmers voted in a referendum on the upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ).
36 Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the SEZ. In Singur, Tata’s plans kept
37 slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments lined up to lure the
38 company as Tata seriously considered moving out—each one trying to outdo each other in
39 terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the
40 ‘secret’ deal between the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court
41 obtaining a restraining order.
42
43 Tata’s lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government
44 was a trade secret. This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture.
45 Ironically the state government had acquired land for the project invoking the “public
46 purpose” law. The state government and company will have to come clean about what
47 exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
48 deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose,
49 details of the agreement must be immediately made public.
50
51 What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that
52 state government are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right
53 to the bottom. The moment Tata Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state
18-11-2023 Page 46 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 47

1 governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket project is such that governments are
2 willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and electricity, give
3 capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
4 industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where
5 not only states are giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resources—
6 land, water, and energy. In a single economic entity that India is, competition
7 between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is neither good for
8 economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for ‘public purpose’.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 I may add that I view toll roads that are for private gain but using public build roads must be
12 deemed unconstitutional
13 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
14 Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S.
15 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872) Olcott v. The Supervisors 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 678
16 QUOTE
17 For this reason it was held that the state had no power to authorize the imposition of
18 taxes to aid in the construction of such a railroad, and therefore that the statute giving
19 Fond du Lac County power to extend such aid was invalid.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
23 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
24 QUOTE
25 "The question is as to the power of the legislature to raise money or to authorize it to
26 be raised, by taxation, for the purpose of donating it to a private corporation. We
27 held, in Curtis v. Whipple, [Footnote 2] that the legislature possessed no
28 such power, and the conclusion in that case we think follows inevitably in this, from the
29 principles stated in the opinion.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 Seems to me the reported $50+ million dollars to stage the Albert Park Grand Prix racing at
33 Melbourne is a payment to a private corporation that cannot be deemed to be for “public
34 purposes”.
35
36 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
37 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
38 QUOTE
39 It is insisted that, as the state cannot itself impose taxes for any other than a public
40 use, so the legislature cannot empower a municipal division of the state to levy and
41 collect taxes for any other than such a use,
42 END QUOTE
43
44 In my view every past and current councillor should be ordered to repay monies they gave away
45 to private organisations!
46
47 Some may face to repay $40,000 or more, depending how long they have been doing this, etc.
48
49 Also, the legal principle embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
50 (UK) is that all monies obtained by way of taxation, duties, etc, all must be placed in the
51 Consolidated Revenue Funds. Then the government can only withdraw monies via
52 Appropriation Bills having been passed by both Houses of Parliament and then enacted. This
53 however did not apply to councils at the time prior to federation, because they as registered
18-11-2023 Page 47 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 48

1 corporations did no more but to collect monies from property owners to pay for the collection of
2 waste, etc. However, after federation State Government purportedly allowed those council
3 corporations to collect State land taxation but the monies so collected were not placed in the
4 State Consolidated Revenue Funds and neither drawn by any Appropriation bill passed by the
5 State Parliament and subsequently enacted. While State Government pretend that councils are a
6 level of government constitutionally this cannot be sustained as the State Government cannot
7 create a level of government no provided for in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
8 Act 1900 (UK). There is a lot more to it all as I have published at my blog
9 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
10
11 Let us consider the issue of the purported Native Title Act, within which constitutional provision
12 is such legislation permitted? It isn’t within Ss51(xxvi) and the Commonwealth can only
13 legislate for the whole of the Commonwealth. Meaning, any legislation must be equally
14 applicable to all Australians. This means that constitutionally all purported Native Title
15 judgments are in violation of the constitution.
16
17 In my view instead of the courts protecting the constitutional rights of all Australians they have
18 gone over to the dark site and now have become themselves a threat to national security. The
19 same with politicians in particular those in government, or pretend to be in government.
20
21 Most if not all Australians lack the knowledge I have regardless if they call themselves
22 constitutional lawyers (an oxymoron like a firefighter firebug) about certain constitutional
23 matters. The mere fact I can refuse to vote in political elections and there is absolutely nothing
24 they can do against me ought to underline that I proved my worth. If the legislation to compel a
25 elector to vote then surely they would pursue me for not voting, but they learned their lesson.
26 And the judge involved actually REFUSED to hand down a reason of judgment and merely
27 issued orders I succeeded in the appeals.
28
29 QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
30 As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on
31 filing institutes the appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all
32 findings of fact and law made in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in
33 challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless
34 by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the absence of reason
35 for the magistrate’s decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
36 for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal
37 process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their
38 witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to
39 know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel
40 the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not
41 only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
42
43 Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not
44 mere ordinary trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of
45 responsibility which administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching
46 consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail. [Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT
47 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it was
48 stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is
49 the duty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his
50 decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his

18-11-2023 Page 48 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 49

1 reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the magistrate
2 to make his order must be explicitly stated.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 While the court recorded that the Commonwealth did not file any evidence, in my view this is
6 insufficient and cannot be deemed to be a proper reason of judgment.
7
8 After all, if a party say pleads guilty then the prosecutor may not need to file any evidence such
9 as with plea bargaining.
10
11 In regard of both appeals I filed a 409 pages written submission (ADDRESS TO THE COURT)
12 and as such entitled for the Court to hand down a reason of judgment setting out the main issues
13 that were before the court and if any submission was made by the prosecutor that may be
14 relevant to each and every issue I raised.
15 In my view the Commonwealth and the 9 Attorney-Generals may have indicated to the trial
16 judge that perhaps some promotion might be provided if he was able to prevent a judgment to be
17 handed down setting out the various issues. After all, if the trial judge had stated in a reason of
18 judgment that I successfully opposed compulsory voting as being unconstitutional, then this kind
19 of judgment would have made the news alright.
20 The same with where I pursued that the purported Australian Citizenship Act (Cth) was
21 unconstitutional as to be deemed to be providing for a “nationality” the media would have had a
22 field day with this.
23 It is in my view that the court simply refused to hand down reason of judgment while upholding
24 both appeals as to prevent the general community to be aware of their constitutional rights, etc.
25
26 Likewise, on 4 August 2005 the Magistrates Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction
27 then upheld my submission that the CEA1918 regarding “AVERMENT” could not be applied.
28 Again, this was a major victory I achieved and yet it was concealed from the general community.
29 Therefore,
30 “If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived
31 in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.”.
32 The general community is entitled to know why a court hands down a certain decision, as after
33 all charges against an Australian are to uphold the rule of law and where this ostensibly seems to
34 be failing in that I succeeded in both appeals (representing myself) whereas others end up failing
35 then it is critical for all Australians to be aware what legislation is valid and what is not.
36
37 Let’s use another issue;
38 It is not uncommon that the Commonwealth deports a person or by agreement with another
39 country extradite an Australian. The question is within what constitutional powers can the
40 Commonwealth extradite an Australian? The same with this covid scam where Australians were
41 denied to re-enter the Commonwealth of Australia regarding an alleged covid disease that never
42 proved to exist, as it was merely an influenza/common cold. In my view Palmer v WA was
43 wrongly decided and the High Court of Australia took part of the Hansard out of context while
44 concealing the relevant part.
45
46 We now seem to have this maniac repeat conduct about “mask mandates” where hospitals may
47 deny Australians their constitutional rights.
48
49 A doctor referred my wife to Austin Health (Austin Hospital) and we received a 13 November
50 2023 correspondence that my wife is placed on a waiting list for an appointment 36+ months.
51 OK, she turned 91 today and well she needs to live at least till 94 + years of age, and who knows
52 then they might still have the waiting list extended for another few years.
18-11-2023 Page 49 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 50

1 When then some Minister is claiming how good the federal government/State government is then
2 well, it proves this Minister is grossly incompetent to even understand that a 91 year old women
3 suffering from heart failure and other comorbidities may not be around when finally after many
4 other years the appointment may still be not forthcoming. We in 2022 paid out about $10,000
5 towards my wife’s health issues, and this year we are getting close to this again, as I am simply
6 not going to stand by letting my wife suffering, as since about 2021 no in-house consultations
7 were provided at the hospital and so we paid privately for them. Meaning, it is not an issue of no
8 doctors being available but rather the “up yours” as we will use excuses to deny appropriate
9 medical care.
10 At least we can feel protected to provide funding to the Ukraine NAZI government for
11 continuing its genocide, as this President Zelenskyy made clear he is protecting the world, while
12 annihilating Ukrainians. And Scott Morrison and his collaborators and now Albanese and his
13 collaborators will be all supporting this NAZI government just to protect Australians from
14 whatever they may claim there to be to be protected against.
15
16 In my view a velvet revolution is long overdue that we need to restore our constitutional system
17 and imprison all the home-grown TRIATORS/TERORIST that are our NATIONAL SECURITY
18 risk.
19
20 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
21 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
22 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
23 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
24 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Well, when I objected to the jurisdiction of the court and Carmody simply states he has
28 jurisdiction without bothering to hold a proper jurisdictional hearing for the opponent party to
29 prove jurisdiction then not only did Carmody never invoke jurisdiction but denied the general
30 community to have one of their peers to have a proper lawful hearing. A judge placing himself
31 above the rule of law!
32
33 "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case
34 before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that
35 question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8;
36 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
37
38
39 McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)
40 QUOTE
41 The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its
42 jurisdiction precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment or
43 that the party asserting jurisdiction may be relieved of his burden by any formal procedure.
44 If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate
45 manner, he must support them by competent proof. And where they are not so challenged
46 the court may still insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed,
47 and for that purpose the court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his
48 allegations by a p - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-
49 court/298/178.html#sthash.vq35K1Gk.dpuf
50 END QUOTE
51
52 USA Supreme Court Law Case Reports:
18-11-2023 Page 50 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 51

1
2 The right to Park or Travel is part of the Liberty of which the Natural Person, citizen cannot be
3 deprived without “due process of law” under the Fifth Amendment of the United States
4 Constitution. Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125:
5
6 Under The United States Republic’s Constitutional system of Government and upon the
7 individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control one’s conduct to
8 others, leaving one the sole judge as to all that affects oneself. Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623,
9 659 – 60:
10
11 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or
12 legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:
13
14 The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v.
15 Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
16
17 For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or
18 penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
19
20 If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject
21 matter, the case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The
22 Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
23
24 “Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”.
25 Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be
26 cured by consent of parties.” Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.
27
28 HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):
29 Consent to summary jurisdiction. “The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and
30 unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedure for obtaining the consent will deprive
31 the Court of Jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily”.
32
33 “A man who exercises his rights harms no one” … a Legal Maxim.
34
35 QUOTE ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
36 A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative
37 law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record,
38 arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from
39 substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are
40 prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
44 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged,
45 cannot be assumed and must be decided.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
49 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 QUOTE Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.

18-11-2023 Page 51 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 52

1 Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the
2 legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
6 Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it
7 assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
8 END QUOTE
9
10 QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
11 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
12 END QUOTE
13
14 QUOTE HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):
15 Consent to summary jurisdiction The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and
16 unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive
17 the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 QUOTE Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
21 Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on
22 appeal.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 QUOTE In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
26 Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have
27 jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 QUOTE (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768).
31 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 QUOTE Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
35 There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 QUOTE Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
39 Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
43 The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
44 proven.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
48 Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the
49 court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should
50 dismiss the action.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
54 Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law,
55 court is deprived of juris.
56 END QUOTE
57
18-11-2023 Page 52 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 53

1 QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

2 A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction
3 are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 QUOTE Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
7 The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
8 END QUOTE
9
10 QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,
11 No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 QUOTE Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
15 Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 QUOTE Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
19 When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the
20 judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial
21 capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely
22 ministerially.
23 END QUOTE
24 .
25 QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
26 Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a
27 nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be
28 rejected upon direct collateral attack.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
32 (2) The Court always has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the
33 purpose of and up to the point of deciding whether it has jurisdiction to
34 make the orders sought in the proceedings.
35 (3) In carrying out that limited exercise of jurisdiction, the Court is required to
36 determine any essential facts upon which the existence of its jurisdiction to make
37 the orders sought ultimately depends (“the jurisdictional facts”). That
38 determination is a function which is incidental to the exercise of the jurisdiction
39 referred to in (2) above.
40 END QUOTE
41 And
42 QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
43 (6) Once a respondent challenges the Court’s jurisdiction to make the orders
44 sought, the Court, before considering the adjudicational facts, must find the
45 existence of the jurisdictional facts, on the balance of probabilities.
46 END QUOTE
47 And
48 QUOTE.
49 FAMILY LAW RULES 20042003 No. 375 - RULE 3.05
50 Objection to jurisdiction
51 (1)
52 If, in a Form 3A, a respondent objects to the jurisdiction of the court, the
53 respondent will not be taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
54 by also seeking an order that the application be dismissed on another ground.
18-11-2023 Page 53 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 54

1 (2)
2 The objection to the jurisdiction must be determined before any other orders
3 sought in the Form 3A.
4 END QUOTE
5 .
6 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
7 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
8 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Despite the numerous Authorities making clear that one jurisdiction is challenged then it must be
12 proven, nevertheless I find judges who do not seem to have a clue how to deal with an objection
13 to jurisdiction at all. And when I raise constitutional issues I had for example Gaynor J in 2012
14 making clear as I recall it “The constitution doesn’t apply to me”.
15
16 The following legal principle also applies in Australia:
17
18 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
19 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
20 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
21 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
22 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
23 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
24 authority of the United States”.
25
26 Hansard 2-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
27 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
28 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
29 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 The issue of “domicile” has been going its rounds through various jurisdictions, but in the end
33 the Commonwealth of Australia has legal principles embedded in the constitution which makes it
34 very clear that the Commonwealth can refuse an alien to have entry into the country and so also
35 can deport a person unlawfully in the country (consider Privy Council Ah Toy case). Therefore
36 judges of the High Court of Australia cannot rely upon foreign judgments which lack such
37 specific legal principle in its constitution!
38
39 Dicey & Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 9th ed (1973), p 96:
40 QUOTE
41 "It has been held that a domicile of choice cannot be acquired by illegal residence. The
42 reason for this rule is that a court cannot allow a person to acquire a domicile in defiance of
43 the law which that court itself administers."
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37 (6 August 2004)
47 QUOTE
48 Zadvydas v Davis[38], to which Kirby J refers, was not concerned with the exercise of
49 judicial power. In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court of the United States held that, as a matter
50 of construction, the statute in question did not provide for the indefinite detention of an
51 alien who had entered the country unlawfully. The Supreme Court said that a law
52 "permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional
53 problem"[39]. That was because under the United States Constitution, "the Due Process
18-11-2023 Page 54 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 55

1 Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their
2 presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent"[40]. Consequently, in
3 accordance with United States doctrine, the Court had to "ascertain whether a construction
4 of the statute is fairly possible by which the question [of constitutionality] may be
5 avoided"[41]. The Court found that the statute in question could be fairly construed as not
6 requiring indefinite detention of an alien. Although Zadvydas was not concerned with
7 judicial power, it is significant that the Court said: "we assume that [the proceedings to
8 deport] are nonpunitive in purpose and effect"[42].
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF
12 APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from:
13 [2003] EWCA Civ 168
14 QUOTE
15 12. In Szechter (orse Karsov) v Szechter [1971] P 286, Sir Jocelyn Simon P held that the
16 parties, who had been given leave to stay in the United Kingdom for a limited period, had
17 acquired a domicile of choice in England by residing here with the intention of making this
18 country their permanent home. Following Boldrini v Boldrini and Martini [1932] P 9 and
19 Cruh v Cruh [1945] 2 All ER 545, he said at p 294-G that it was immaterial that their
20 intentions were liable to be frustrated by the decision of the Secretary of State for the
21 Home Department as to permission for their continued residence here. This is a clear
22 indication that, under our law, a domicile of choice is not lost if the residence becomes
23 unlawful at some later date.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF
27 APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from:
28 [2003] EWCA Civ 168
29 QUOTE
30 LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS
31 My Lords,
32 14. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned
33 friends Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with their
34 reasoning in relation both to ordinary residence and to domicile and, for the reasons which
35 they give, I would also dismiss this appeal.
36 BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND
37 My Lords,
38 15. The issue before us is whether a person can be either habitually resident or domiciled
39 in England and Wales if her presence in the United Kingdom is a criminal offence under
40 the Immigration Act 1971. The immediate context is whether our courts have jurisdiction,
41 under section 5(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, to entertain her
42 divorce petition. But the domicile issue could arise in many other contexts, as a person can
43 only have one domicile, whereas habitual residence may have a different meaning in
44 different statutes according to their context and purpose.
45 Immigration control
46 16. It is worth remembering that the question could not arise until comparatively recently.
47 As Ann Dummett and Andrew Nicol explain in Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others
48 (1990), pp 39 - 40,
49 "It is taken for granted today that any state's system of immigration control is
50 permanent and universal. That is, a permanent legal framework exists for
51 scrutinising all entrants and for determining which of them may stay, for how long,
52 and under what conditions. . . Such permanent, universal control over immigration
18-11-2023 Page 55 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 56

1 is of recent origin only. It would have been unthinkable in early twentieth century
2 Britain; for one thing, it would have been regarded as a gross invasion of personal
3 freedom; for another, it would have been physically impossible to enforce.
4 Passports were not yet a general requirement. Modern controls depend upon
5 universal documentation, telecommunications, a large bureaucracy, and greater
6 powers to invade people's privacy within the country than then existed."
7 17. Monarchs did from time to time seek to expel or exclude aliens, although whether this
8 was an aspect of the royal prerogative is disputed. Blackstone put it this way
9 (Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol 1, 2nd ed (1766) p 259): "For so long as their
10 nation continues at peace with ours, and they themselves behave peaceably, they are under
11 the King's protection; though liable to be sent home whenever the King sees occasion."
12 From time to time, temporary legislation was passed to meet a temporary crisis. Lord
13 Grenville's Aliens Act of 1793 was passed in response to the excesses of the French
14 revolution. This sought to identify aliens on arrival, prohibit some from landing, and
15 provided the machinery for removing those who were ordered to leave. It was renewed
16 until replaced by further legislation in 1802 and again in 1803 which concentrated on
17 identifying and removing aliens rather than prohibiting landing. This was to last until there
18 was a peace treaty. In 1814 and again in 1815 Parliament reverted to legislation which had
19 to be renewed from time to time. By 1826, the country must have felt sufficiently secure to
20 replace the machinery for removal with a permanent system of registration. But after the
21 French Revolution of 1848, it was once again thought expedient 'for the due Security of the
22 Peace and Tranquillity of this Realm' to resort, for a limited period, to the earlier
23 machinery for ordering aliens to depart: see Aliens Act 1848. But the Crown also
24 reserved the right to refuse to return aliens to their own countries if they would face
25 persecution there. The calls for permanent controls on entry began towards the end of the
26 19th century in response to the arrival of large numbers of Jewish people escaping the
27 pogroms in Eastern Europe. These culminated in the recommendations of the Royal
28 Commission on Alien Immigration, 1903, Cd 1741. These were highly controversial and
29 emerged, much watered down, in the Aliens Act 1905. This contained powers to refuse
30 entry to, and to deport, defined types of 'undesirable' aliens. Immigration inspectors, the
31 forerunners of the modern immigration service, were appointed to do this. But the Act was
32 comparatively easily evaded. The Aliens Restriction Act 1914 was rushed through the day
33 after war was declared, allowing Orders in Council to be made imposing much more
34 severe controls over all aliens in times of war, imminent national danger or great
35 emergency. After the war, however, it was continued and extended by the Aliens
36 Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919, which also repealed the 1905 Act. It was renewed
37 annually until superseded by the Immigration Act 1971.
38 18. The Aliens Acts did not apply to the inhabitants of the British Empire. They were not
39 aliens. Mostly they were British subjects owing allegiance to the Crown, although the
40 British Nationality Act 1948 drew a distinction between Citizens of the United Kingdom
41 and Colonies and citizens of the independent members of the Commonwealth. All were
42 entitled to come here freely until the first Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962. This
43 regulated the entry of Commonwealth citizens coming here for a variety of purposes. The
44 main effect was to restrict the numbers coming here to work; family reunion was still
45 allowed. During the 1960s, entry clearance officers were established in Commonwealth
46 countries to process dependants' applications for entry and under the Immigration Appeals
47 Act 1969, prior entry clearance became a legal requirement. The Commonwealth
48 Immigrants Act 1968 extended controls to United Kingdom citizens unless they, a parent
49 or grandparent had been born here. The 1962 Act made it an offence for a Commonwealth
50 citizen subject to immigration control to enter or remain within the United Kingdom
51 without the leave of an immigration officer.
18-11-2023 Page 56 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 57

1 19. The Immigration Act 1971 brought everyone under the same system of control. It
2 abolished the distinction between aliens and British subjects and introduced the distinction
3 between patrials with the right of abode, who were not subject to immigration control, and
4 non-patrials who were subject to immigration control. Under section 24 of the 1971 Act a
5 person commits a criminal offence, among other things, "if, having only a limited leave to
6 enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he knowingly either - (i) remains beyond the time
7 limited by the leave; or (ii) fails to observe a condition of the leave" (s 24(1)(b)).
8 END QUOTE
9
10 https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/comment-page-
11 1/#comments
12 Tom Welsh October 22, 2019 at 20:55
13 QUOTE
14 The resemblance to a Soviet show trial is breathtaking. As Russia and China have become
15 freer and more prsoperous, Britain is rapidly becoming Airfield One. And we must all
16 remember O’Brien’s conclusion.
17 “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of
18 others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness;
19 only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. [He
20 means Room 101]. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know
21 what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and
22 hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their
23 methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended,
24 perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time,
25 and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and
26 equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of
27 relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in
28 order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the
29 dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The
30 object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
31 – George Orwell (O’Brien to Winston Smith, “1984”)
32 END QUOTE
33

34
35
36 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
37
38 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
39 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

41 (Our name is our motto!)
18-11-2023 Page 57 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati