Page 1

1
2
3 Attorney-General Michelle Rowland 17-5-2025
4 Email [email protected],
5
6 Cc: Service Australian CUSTOMER.COMMENTS <[email protected]>
7 Centrelink Ref 301 602 799V Reply Paid 7800, CANBERRA BC ACT 2610
8
9 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
10 Re 20250517-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland
11 -regarding THE THEFT OF AGE PENSION & RIGHTS, ETC, part 7
12 Michelle,
13 how to understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the legal
14 principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) should be
15 a priority to those dealing with constitutional rights of citizens but even the High Court of
16 Australia judges seem to lack this. For example, it claimed that the so-called Child Support
17 Agency can access private and confidential details of a person declaring taxable income.
18 Reality is that the Commonwealth lax any legislative powers as to circumvent constitutional
19 protection of citizens and the Child Support Agency therefore cannot access private confidential
20 details of any person having declared taxable income.
21
22 Note: O.W.B. (Order of the Wattle Blossom) in recognition:
23 QUOTE
24 For upholding the civil rights, and political liberties of Australians, inherent in
25 the Commonwealth Constitution.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing
31 crime to the Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make
32 special laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such laws
33 does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of the
34 Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not
35 defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all,
36 however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we
37 do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the
38 Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we
39 should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the
40 Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this
41 matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing
42 any religion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected-
43 Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not
44 be established.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Again:

17-5-2025 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
2 I do not think that that applies at all, however,
3 to any power of regulating the lives and
4 proceedings of citizens, because we do not give
5 any such power to the Commonwealth
6
7 HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in
8 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN.
9 He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no
10 duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as
11 it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the
12 protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long
13 antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in
14 accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their
15 rights."
16
17
18 HANSARD 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
19 Australasian Convention)
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. BARTON: Let this speech do for the referendum also.
22 Mr. TRENWITH: I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people
23 for more freedom, for greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought
24 to make provision in this Constitution by which the will of the people can become law.
25 If we do that we shall be doing something which will make it more certain that this
26 Constitution will be adopted by the people.
27 END QUOTE
28 .
29 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
31 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
32 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
33 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
34 END QUOTE
35
36 HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the
39 rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
43 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
44
45 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
46 Australasian Convention)
47 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
48 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
49 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
50 secure to him.
51 END QUOTE
52 .
53 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
54 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

17-5-2025 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 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
2 Constitution,
3 END QUOTE
4
5
6 Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
7 Australasian Convention)
8 QUOTE Mr. WISE:
9 The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any
10 ingenuity could suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that
11 question. That at once removes one of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two
12 chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of dispute arising from social differences,
13 all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the controversialists of
14 one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
15 that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted
16 to its jurisdiction; and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil
17 rights, all matters that affect property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great
18 objects which stir the passions and affect the interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I
19 shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-to perceive in this bill
20 any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
21 people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In
22 legislation affecting commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine
23 that the states will be brought into conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the
24 populations of the two large states over a question of trade. It is possible to imagine the
25 same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of finance.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 What this means that any legislation that any Government entity (Service Australia/Centrelink)
29 can obtain and/or divulge to or from others private confidential details is unconstitutional.
30
31 Meaning that Service Australia/Centrelink obtaining a citizens’ private confidential details from
32 banking and other financial institutions is and remains to be unconstitutional!
33
34 I am often bombarded with all kind of scams, including those from purportedly being from the
35 ATO, Service Australia and many others. The so-called MyGov is a ground zero facility for
36 scammers. After all besides the lack of real security at Service Australia facilities there are all
37 kinds of work from home public service employees who each are vulnerable to be hacked or
38 even themselves can misuse/abuse their access to confidential details.
39 This means that MyGov really itself is a danger to public safety.
40
41 Moreover, this unconstitutional provision in various legislative and other forms that some
42 Government entity can provide details to “partners” such as WHO (World health Organisation
43 and others underlines how far this TREASONOUS conduct is perpetrated against Australians.
44
45 When for example my (now Late) wife attended to Specsavers for hearing test I discovered that
46 this information appeared to be published upon some federal government website. This clearly
47 would be beyond the scope of even S51(xxiiiA) this as providing funding doesn’t mean that the
48 test results somehow should become accessible to others let alone to the WHO, UN, W.E.F.
49 and/or others. In fact, at no time was my wife asked for permission to allow this disclosure as
50 such to be made.
51
52 What therefore is needed and badly overdue for all legislative and other requirement about
53 personal private confidential details to be excluded from government records other than those
17-5-2025 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 essential for the purpose required. And prohibition of any exchange of details to others,
2 including government entities.
3
4 I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY Queen’s
5 Bench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 in which the
6 plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone about
7 suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had a
8 genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence
9 this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.
10
11 Hence, Service Australia/Centrelink claiming any false evidence means it never had a case!
12
13 The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
14 (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
15 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands”
16 best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
17
18 Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of
19 common right and common reason are null and void”. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight
20 to the point --that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to
21 the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and
22 reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of practice.”
23
24 Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
25 rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
26
27 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
28 into a crime.”
29
30 Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise
31 of constitutional rights.”
32
33 Meaning, that Service Australia/Centrelink cannot deny me my constitutional rights to an Age
34 Pension as to try me to abort my constitutional rights not to provide private confidential
35 information I do not desire to disclose, regardless of the nature of such details/information.
36 As for obtaining banking private confidential information such as how a citizen pays grocery or
37 other bills is none of the governments business and yet would be part of banking and/or other
38 financial statements that Service Australia/Centrelink obtains from those copies of
39 banking/financial institutions businesses.
40
41 Sherer v. Cullen , 481 F 946. We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, the
42 Constitution itself answers our question 􀳦 Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American
43 people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: Miranda v.
44 Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
45 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
46 Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
47 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no
48 office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
49 Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
50 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
51 constitutional rights."
52 Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
53 "The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a
54 crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
55 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
56 Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the
17-5-2025 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 United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation
2 of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
3 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or
4 judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking
5 to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
6 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
7 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
8 Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417 "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law
9 under which he presumes to act."
10 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
11 "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms
12 and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
13 constitution is void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what
14 shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States
15 generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and
16 practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states
17 "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of
18 citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or
19 equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
20 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
21 Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
22 When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter
23 jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme
24 Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he
25 comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or
26 representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has
27 no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
28 Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42
29 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise
30 of constitutional rights."
31 Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
32 "No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."
33 Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
34 "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore
35 the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
36 Brinegar v. U.S.,388 US 160 (1949)
37 Probable Cause to Arrest - Provides details on how to determine if a crime has
38 been or is being committed.
39 Carroll v. U.S., 267 US 132 (1925)
40 Probable Cause to Search - Provides details on the belief that seizable property
41 exists in a particular place or on a particular person.
42 Draper v. U.S. (1959)
43 Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify
44 a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. Reasonable man definition;
45 common textbook definition; comes from this case.
46 Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v.
47 Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated
48 under the name of local practice."
49 Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
50 "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
51 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
52 "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however in artfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to
53 less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
54 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
55 151 Fed 2nd 240 ; Pucket v. Cox,456 2nd 233 Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality;
56 pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
57 Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
58 The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was
59 held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe
60 Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
61 Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA)
62 It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in
17-5-2025 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 Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

2 Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." “Because of what
3 appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law,
4 are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”
5 US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)
6 Supreme Court of the United States 1795 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and
7 a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having
8 neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal
9 manifestation of this is that no
10 government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
11 artificial persons and the contracts between them."
12 S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall.
13 54), "The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross
14 improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them
15 know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial."
16 Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372,
17 Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit... includes the
18 deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation.
19 A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,... and if he deliberately conceals material information from them
20 he is guilty of fraud.
21 "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all
22 administrative proceedings."
23 Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533. “A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant
24 is void. It is a nullity.”
25 Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App 2d 573, 576-7, 840 P. 2d 553 (1992) rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093(1993) “The law
26 provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it musts be proven.”
27 Main v Thiboutot, 100 S Ct. 2502(1980) “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” and “Jurisdiction, once
28 challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
29 Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910
30 “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”
31 Stock v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289 In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d
32 532 (1st Dist. 1997) "Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of
33 limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the structures of the
34 statute." "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see,
35 Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “...every man is
36 independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his
37 fellowmen without his consent.”
38 CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70 "Corpus delecti consists of a showing of "1) the occurrence of the
39 specific kind of injury and 2) someone's criminal act as the cause of the injury."
40 Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 (Ind. 1995). “State must produce corroborating evidence of “corpus
41 delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting
42 crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity.”
43 Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 113, 121. "To establish the corpus delecti, independent evidence must be presented
44 showing the occurrence of a specific kind of injury and that a criminal act was the cause of the injury."
45 Porter v. State , 391 N.E.2d 801, 808-809. "When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to
46 the same burdens as any private firm or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of
47 U.S. vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103
48 TREZEVANT CASE DAMAGE AWARD STANDARD
49 "Evidence that motorist cited for traffic violation was incarcerated for 23 minutes during booking process, even
50 though he had never been arrested and at all times had sufficient cash on hand to post bond pending court
51 disposition of citation, was sufficient to support finding that municipality employing officer who cited motorist and
52 county board of criminal justice, which operated facility in which motorist was incarcerated, had unconstitutionally
53 deprived motorist of his right to liberty. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d
54 336, hn. 1
55 "Jury verdict of $25,000 in favor of motorist who was unconstitutionally deprived of his liberty when incarcerated
56 during booking process following citation for traffic violation was not excessive in view of evidence of motorist's
57 back pain during period of incarceration and jailor's refusal to provide medical treatment, as well as fact that
58 motorist was clearly entitled to compensation for incarceration itself and for mental anguish that he had suffered
59 from entire episode. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5
60 Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) "We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it
61 existed at the time it was adopted."
62 SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969. Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance
17-5-2025 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 for private purposes upon the Common way can

2 NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the
3 purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.
4 "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the
5 citizenship to the agencies of government."
6 City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 “To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the
7 right itself. But that is not within the power of the State.”
8 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885). Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748, (1970) "Waivers of
9 Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient
10 awareness."
11 Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962), "Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The
12 record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show,
13 that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not
14 waiver."
15 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war
16 against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." The constitutional theory is that we the
17 people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents." "The individual, unlike the corporation,
18 cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and
19 charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment
20 of which an excise cannot be imposed."
21 Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] "...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured
22 in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance,
23 misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual' , not his official capacity..."
24 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability
25 “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,”
26 Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426. “Fraud vitiates everything”
27 Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 "Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents
28 and even judgments."
29 U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of
30 Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials
31 and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in
32 good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot
33 plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for
34 learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in
35 matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
36 "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual"
37 capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires
38 (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity."
39 Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr,
40 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
41 "It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so perform
42 every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions."
43 Montgomery v state 55 Fla. 97-45S0.879
44 a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a
45 government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is
46 foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.
47 The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern
48 itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
49 S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3
50 Dall. 54; and,
51 b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities:
52 c. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union,
53 are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual
54 entity"", Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
55 Alexander v. Bothsworth, 1915. “Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized. Free
56 consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts.”
57
58 HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in
59 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN.
60 He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no
61 duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as
62 it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the
17-5-2025 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 protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long
2 antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in
3 accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their
4 rights."
5
6 HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of
7 America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v.
8 Henkel None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been
9 cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is
10 cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case. Compared with other previously decided Supreme
11 Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. "The
12 rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the
13 citizenship to the agencies of government."
14 City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
15
16 “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right
17 to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145
18 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
19 TITLE 18
20 >
21 PART I
22 >
23 CHAPTER 2
24 >§
25 31Definitions (6)
26 Motor vehicle.􀳦 The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or
27 drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers,
28 passengers and property, or property or cargo.
29 "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper
30 manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right
31 of every citizen."
32
33 Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
34 The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the
35 interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the of a
36 liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. ..."
37
38 Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872 "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with
39 freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with
40 criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts."
41
42 People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes
43 involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one
44 of the several states.”
45 Consider this as to a “resident” of the Northern Territory and the ACT!
46
47
48
49 Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914) "One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator
50 within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act."
51
52 Pontius v. McClean 113 CA 452 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who
53 solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at
54 Large California Chapter 412 p.833 "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his
55 property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or
56 prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
57 Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in
58 Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
59 Also See:
60 - EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160

17-5-2025 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 - TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78

2 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
3 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
4 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
5 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
6 - GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
7 - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
8 - SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
9 - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)
10
11 Protection; California Constitution Article 1, section 9 Due Process; Equal
12 Privileges and Immunities:
13 (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection
14 of the laws. Due process means that anybody wishing to restrain property or file a protest against property of
15 another, be it land, livestock, etc. must first put up a Bond to indemnify the lawful owner(s) for the takings, THEN
16 go through the process of having the matter decided by a jury.
17
18
19 We already have the evidence that Service Australia/Centrelink purportedly accessed my Late
20 wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel private confidential details as Service Australia/Centrelink claimed
21 that on 8 August 2024 (after the death of my wife) allegedly obtained records. This means it
22 must have been unconstitutionally accessed her private and confidential banking details as well
23 as any alleged shareholdings, etc. From this Service Australia/Centrelink seemed to have their
24 own calculations as to purported entitlements of what? After all, as I had already notified Service
25 Australia/Centrelink about my wife’s death and so all and any further entitlements would be no
26 more then there was no legal justification in any way to access her private confidential details.
27 Reality is that Service Australia/Centrelink also access my private and confidential details and in
28 totality concluded (without my input whatsoever) that the ROBODEBT 3 kind of system was
29 applied that I had been deemed to have an ANNUAL income of $533.49 being about $1.64 a
30 day!
31 Obviously, a critical issue is for what purposes did Service Australia/Centrelink access my late
32 wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel private and confidential details? As I had already reported her death
33 then clearly there was no possible lawful excuse to do so, not that I seek to imply that it would
34 have had a lawful excuse if she was still alive or there was no constitutional constrains existing!
35
36 Even by Service Australia/Centrelink own claimed details that I had been deemed to have an
37 ANNUAL income of $533.49 being about $1.64 a day, then any attempt by Service
38 Australia/Centrelink to try to get me to divulge any private confidential details would be an
39 extortion/terrorism conduct as it really seeks to force me to disclose details in addition to the
40 alleged unlawful obtained private confidential details/information.
41
42 In my view even the involvement of employers to disclose to any government entity, including
43 the ATO, of personal income details and withholding taxes I view is unconstitutional! The same
44 as to withholding part of shareholding dividends! After all, a person who may receive
45 shareholding divide ATO then to apply some ROBODEBT 2 kind of system to steal monies
46 from a shareholders dividends and in the process causes also undue financial hardship where a
47 shareholder may due to the monies robbed by the ATO have for incur financial hardship and pay
48 charges to borrow monies to make up in the meantime to be able to pay for medical expenses
49 otherwise covered by the monies stolen by the ATO from her shareholding dividends. While it
50 may be argued that it is the employer/company who withholds taxation, reality is that they are
51 unconstitutionally forced to do so by unconstitutional legislation, etc.
52
53 I estimate that the ATO stole and continue to steal tens of thousands of dollars from my (now
54 Late) wife estate regardless that it has no constitutional right doing so! As the ATO
17-5-2025 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 unconstitutionally pursues “AVERT” in the courts while it was made well aware that
2 constitutionally it has no right to do so and violates the August 2005 AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
3 court order, then this means that where the ATO claims additional charges, etc, against a person
4 it claims didn’t pay all required taxation then likewise it now must likewise pay all those kind of
5 charges in addition of the monies stolen from my late wife’s estate and adjusted for the loss of
6 devaluation of the years back into her estate. As the only nominated executor of my Late wife
7 Estate I have all the powers needed to make this demand! I have currently no legal obligation as
8 to disclose private and confidential details regarding my Late wife’s last will and testament!
9 The ATO in Commonwealth v George Williams was advised that it couldn’t use “AVERT”
10 because of the August 2005 court order in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka but I understand nevertheless
11 persisted doing so and by this I view perverted the course of justice as well as undermined the
12 “IMPARTIAL Administration of Justice”. In the process robbed the grandchild Dhakota
13 Williams of her rightful ownership of what her grandfather had bequeathed to her.
14 I take it very seriously that a lawyer purporting to be an OFICER OF THE COURT violate
15 their very oath/affirmation and undermine the “IMPARTIAL Administration of Justice” while
16 purportedly claiming to uphold the rule of law!
17
18 We have, for example, that there are claimed “PPP” being Public, Private Partnerships by which
19 the State and/or Federal Government obtain properties for “public purposes” but then allow a
20 private company to charge fees (tolls) where previously a road build by public monies suddenly
21 is turned into a toll road , for example Tullamarine Freeway having partly converted into a toll
22 road and has been extended for tolls for a private company being involved in other road works
23 nothing to do with Tullamarine Freeway itself. The same regarding the Albert Park racing in
24 Melbourne the following should be considered also!
25
26 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=1
27 QUOTE
28 Travesty of public purpose
29
30 State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
31
32 IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite
33 developments. In Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected
34 farmers voted in a referendum on the upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ).
35 Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the SEZ. In Singur, Tata’s plans kept
36 slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments lined up to lure the
37 company as Tata seriously considered moving out—each one trying to outdo each other in
38 terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the
39 ‘secret’ deal between the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court
40 obtaining a restraining order.
41
42 Tata’s lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government
43 was a trade secret. This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture.
44 Ironically the state government had acquired land for the project invoking the “public
45 purpose” law. The state government and company will have to come clean about what
46 exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
47 deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose,
48 details of the agreement must be immediately made public.
49
50 What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that
51 state government are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right
52 to the bottom. The moment Tata Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state
53 governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket project is such that governments are
17-5-2025 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 willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and electricity, give
2 capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
3 industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where
4 not only states are giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resources—
5 land, water, and energy. In a single economic entity that India is, competition
6 between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is neither good for
7 economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for ‘public purpose’.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 I may add that I view toll roads that are for private gain but using public build roads must be
11 deemed unconstitutional
12 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
13 Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16
14 Wall. 678 678 (1872) Olcott v. The Supervisors 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 678
15 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
16 QUOTE
17 What was considered was the uses for which taxation generally, taxation by any
18 government, might be authorized, and particularly whether the construction and
19 maintenance of a railroad, owned by a corporation, is a matter of public concern. It was
20 asserted (what nobody doubts), that the taxing power of a state extends no farther than to
21 raise money for a public use, as distinguished from private, or to accomplish some end
22 public in its nature, and it was decided that building a railroad, if it be constructed and
23 owned by a corporation, though built by authority of the state, is not a matter in which the
24 public has any interest, of such a nature as to warrant taxation in its aid.
25 Page 83 U. S. 690
26 For this reason it was held that the state had no power to authorize the imposition of
27 taxes to aid in the construction of such a railroad, and therefore that the statute giving
28 Fond du Lac County power to extend such aid was invalid.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
32 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
33 QUOTE
34 In 1870, that is to say, subsequent to the issue of these orders, though prior to the trial of this case in the
35 court below, the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, in the Page 83 U. S. 680 case of Whiting v.
36 Fond du Lac County, [Footnote 1] held this act to be void, upon the ground that the building of a railroad,
37 to be owned and worked by a corporation in the usual way, was not an object in which the public were
38 interested, and therefore that the act in question was void, for the reason that it authorized the levy of a tax
39 for a private and not a public purpose. The court there said:
40 "The question is as to the power of the legislature to raise money or to authorize it
41 to be raised, by taxation, for the purpose of donating it to a private corporation.
42 We held, in Curtis v. Whipple, [Footnote 2] that the legislature possessed no such
43 power, and the conclusion in that case we think follows inevitably in this, from the
44 principles stated in the opinion.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Seems to me the reported $50+ million dollars to stage the Albert Park Grand Prix racing at
48 Melbourne is a payment to a private corporation that cannot be deemed to be for “public
49 purposes”.
50
51 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
52 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
53 QUOTE
54 Page 83 U. S. 693

17-5-2025 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 "The legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy a tax, or authorize a municipal corporation to
2 do so, in order to raise funds for a mere private purpose. It cannot, in the form of a tax, take the
3 money of the citizen and give it to an individual, the public interest or welfare being in no way
4 connected with the transaction. The objects for which the money is raised by taxation must be
5 public, and such as subserve the common interest and wellbeing of the community required to
6 contribute. . . . To justify the court in arresting the proceedings and declaring the tax void, the
7 absence of all possible public interest in the purposes for which the funds are raised must be clear
8 and palpable; so clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind AT THE FIRST BLUSH."
9 All these expositions of the law of the state were made by its highest court before the county orders now in
10 suit were issued. They certainly did assert that building a railroad, whether built by the state or by a
11 corporation created by the state for the purpose, was a matter of public concern, and that because it was a
12 public use, the right of eminent domain might be exerted or delegated for it, and taxation might be
13 authorized for its aid. It was the declared law of the state, therefore, when the bonds now in suit were
14 issued, that the uses of railroads, though built by private corporations, were public uses, such as warranted
15 the exercise of the public right of eminent domain in their aid, and also the power of taxation.
16 We are not, then, concluded by a decision, made in 1870, that such public uses are not of a nature to justify
17 the imposition of taxes. We are at liberty to inquire what are public uses, and what restrictions, if any, are
18 imposed upon the state's taxing power.
19 It is not claimed that the Constitution of Wisconsin contains any express denial of power in the legislature
20 to authorize municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads, or to impose taxes for that
21 purpose. The entire legislative power of the state is confessedly vested in the General Assembly. An
22 implied inhibition only is asserted.
23 Page 83 U. S. 694
24 It is insisted that, as the state cannot itself impose taxes for any other than a public
25 use, so the legislature cannot empower a municipal division of the state to levy and
26 collect taxes for any other than such a use,
27 END QUOTE
28
29 As the High Court of Australia in Municipal of Sydney v Commonwealth made clear that a
30 “council” cannot legislate and only collect “state taxes” as provided for by State legislation and
31 this judgment subsequently was to be reconsidered where on 11 November 1910 the State lost
32 their “concurrent” legislative powers as to “land taxation” then councils cannot raise moneys as a
33 form of council rates (state land taxation) either. They can obviously charge for garbage
34 collection for which councils were acknowledged to be a corporation. However, a corporation
35 cannot force anyone to join it, regardless of what services might be offered. If for example 3
36 different repair shops are registered companies and each offer car service then none of them can
37 force you to select them for car service to be done if you do not desire this or do not need it.
38
39 Neither can the State acquire private property not for public purposes but the real intent is that to
40 be used for a builders’ personal interest. As the High Court of Australia already decided in an
41 NSW case where the Government pursued to acquire private property but intended this for a
42 builder being unacceptable. Any contract involving taxpayers’ monies must always be published.
43 Hence, the contracts with pharmaceutical companies must be disclosed and cannot be hidden
44 behind the nonsense of “PUBLIC INTEREST” or “NATIONAL SECURITY” as Scott Morrison
45 and his associates fraudulently claimed to be.
46
47 As result of the following case Edward T. Young, Attorney General violating a Court order
48 ended up in imprisonment. With you and other Ministers acting in my view in a
49 TREASONOUS manner contrary to the true meaning and application of the legal principles
50 embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then this is even
51 worse. As for the 11th Amendment of the USA constitution if this applies to the Commonwealth
52 of Australia, if you were a competent “constitutional adviser” to the governor-General then you
53 should be well aware that all principles embedded in the USA constitution as well as up to and
54 including the 15th amendment are embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution

17-5-2025 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 Act 1900 (UK)! See my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati for extensive set out of
2 these issues. And also, that to carry weapons is a right enshrine as a principle in our constitution!
3
4 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
5 Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
6 QUOTE
7 A temporary restraining order was made by the Circuit Court, which only restrained the
8 railway company from publishing the rates as provided for in the act of April 18, 1907, and
9 from reducing its tariffs to the figures set forth in that act, the court refusing for the present
10 to interfere by injunction with regard to the orders of the commission and the act of April 4,
11 1907, as the railroads had already put them in operation; but it restrained Edward T.
12 Young, Attorney General, from taking any steps against the railroads to enforce the
13 remedies or penalties specified in the act of April 18, 1907.
14 Copies of the bill and the restraining order were served, among others, upon the defendant
15 Mr. Edward T. Young, Attorney General, who appeared specially and only for the purpose
16 of moving to dismiss the bill as to him, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction
17 over him as Attorney General; and he averred that the State of Minnesota had not
18 consented, and did not consent, to the commencement of this suit against him as Attorney
19 General of the State, which suit was, in truth and effect, a suit against the said State of
20 Minnesota contrary to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
21 The Attorney General also filed a demurrer to the bill on the same ground stated in the
22 motion to dismiss. The motion was denied and the demurrer overruled.
23 Thereupon, on the 23d of September, 1907, the court, after a hearing of all parties and
24 taking proofs in regard to the issues involved, ordered a temporary injunction to issue
25 against the railway company restraining it, pending the final hearing of the cause, from
26 putting into effect the tariffs, rates, or charges set forth in the act approved April 18, 1907.
27 The court also enjoined the defendant Young, as Attorney General of the State of
28 Minnesota, pending the final hearing of the cause, from taking or instituting any action or
29 proceeding to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in the act above mentioned, or
30 to compel obedience to that act, or compliance therewith, or any part thereof.
31 Page 209 U. S. 133
32 END QUOTE
33
34 https://seniorsdiscountclub.com.au/threads/pensioners-may-benefit-from-4-000-boost-from-
35 centrelink-soon-heres-how-to-qualify.73890/?utm_source=campaign-
36 monitor&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter
37 QUOTE
38 Pensioners may benefit from $4,000 boost from Centrelink soon. Here's how to qualify
39 By Danielle F.
40 Tuesday at 10:11 AM
41 Replies 59
42 The cost of living crisis has affected many Australians' wallets and bank accounts.
43
44 For seniors who live on fixed incomes, Centrelink recently announced a form
45 of reprieve for their finances.
46
47 Senior Australians may receive more money in their pockets soon.
48
49 Centrelink's Work Bonus Scheme recently announced a 'one-off boost' of $4,000.
50
51 What is the Work Bonus Scheme, and how does it work?
52
17-5-2025 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 The Work Bonus Scheme is a government initiative that encourages senior Australians to
2 stay in the workforce, even for a few hours a week.
3

4
5 The Work Bonus Scheme also boosted many seniors wallets in 2024. Image Credit: Tech
6 Business News
7
8 It allows seniors to earn more from work before their pension payments get affected.
9
10 The Work Bonus Scheme allows seniors to keep more of their hard-earned cash without
11 worrying about reductions on their pension.
12
13 For seniors claiming the pension for the first time, Centrelink will automatically give them
14 a Work Bonus of $4,000.
15
16
17 Who is eligible for the Work Bonus Scheme?
18
19 Seniors over the age of 67 and receiving Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, or Carer
20 Payments are eligible for the Work Bonus Scheme.
21
22 There's no need to apply separately for the Work Bonus as it is applied automatically.
23
24 Seniors just need to report their income to Centrelink.
25
26 What counts as 'work'?
27
28 The Work Bonus applies to income from paid employment.
29
30 This type of employment includes casual, part-time, or full-time jobs.
31
32 Self-employed individuals like small business owners or those doing odd jobs may also
33 qualify for the Work Bonus Scheme.
34
35 However, the Work Bonus Scheme does not apply to superannuation, rental and
36 investment incomes.
37
38
39 Why is the Work Bonus Scheme important?
40
41 With the cost of living on the rise, Australians, especially seniors, are looking for ways to
42 supplement their income.
43
44 The Work Bonus Scheme may make it easier for seniors to take on extra work.
45
46 Whether it's a few shifts at the local shop, helping out with grandkids' school runs, or even

17-5-2025 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 starting a small business, seniors may earn more without the fear of losing their pension.
2
3 It's also a great way to stay active, social, and engaged in the community, all while
4 boosting seniors' bank balances.
5
6 Here's how seniors can maximise their Work Bonus:
7
8 Keep Centrelink information updated: Always report income accurately and on time to
9 avoid any issues.
10 Track your Work Bonus balance: Check balances through Centrelink online accounts or
11 by contacting Services Australia.
12 Plan your work: For those working in certain months, such as the Christmas holidays,
13 seniors can 'save up' their Work Bonus balance in quieter periods.
14 For more information about the Work Bonus Scheme, please call Services Australia at 132
15 300 or go to their website here.
16
17 Key Takeaways
18 • Aussies on the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension or Carer Payment can benefit
19 from the Work Bonus scheme without it reducing their Centrelink payments.
20 • Eligible pensioners automatically receive a $4,000 Work Bonus balance if they are
21 claiming for the first time.
22 • Eligible seniors just need to report any income from work to Centrelink to receive the
23 said benefit.
24 • Seniors with part-time and full-time work or self-employed individuals qualify for the
25 Work Bonus Scheme.
26
27 Have you taken advantage of the Work Bonus Scheme before to boost your income? Did it
28 help you stay in the workforce or try something new? Share your experiences, tips, or
29 questions about this one-off benefit in the comments section below.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 https://seniorsdiscountclub.com.au/threads/we-will-always-let-you-know-government-entity-
33 issues-urgent-warning-for-pensioners.74423/?utm_source=campaign-
34 monitor&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter
35 QUOTE
36 'We will always let you know': Government entity issues urgent warning for pensioners
37 By Danielle F.
38 Yesterday at 2:01 PM
39 Replies 8
40 In today's digital age, even the most complicated transactions can be done remotely
41 through phones and computers.
42
43 Yet, new scams pop up every week, targeting vulnerable members of society like seniors.
44
45 For those who have received messages about their Centrelink payments, Services Australia
46 has issued a warning to help seniors steer clear of these schemes.
47
48 Services Australia declared that there have been no recent changes to Age Pension
49 eligibility.
50
51 In the same vein, there have been no changes in the way Centrelink verifies documents.
52
17-5-2025 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 Services Australia urged everyone, especially seniors, to 'double-check' any submissions.

2

3
4 Scammers are taking advantage of the busy tax return season and the turbulence in
5 superannuation. Image Credit: Pexels/Tima Miroshnichenko
6
7 The warning came after a rise of scams regarding misinformation about Age Pension
8 spreading online.
9
10 Scammers have been working overtime to spread misinformation, hoping to take
11 advantage of those who may be feeling anxious about their finances.
12
13 As tax season looms closer, this announcement was a timely reminder from Services
14 Australia.
15
16 Fake websites posing as Services Australia look almost identical to the real Centrelink
17 page.
18
19 These websites come with official-looking logos and government-style language.
20
21 Scammers often use urgent headlines to lure people to their sites.
22
23 Fake Centrelink websites also promise 'one-off' payments, 'cost of living' bonuses, or
24 threats to cancel payments if customers do not act fast.
25
26 However, Services Australia shared a tip for everyone so they could protect themselves
27 from scams.
28
29 'If a website URL doesn't end in .gov.au, then it isn't an official government website,'
30 Services Australia stated.
31
32 'We will always let you know when there are changes to any of our payments or services.'
33
34
35 Services Australia's General Manager, Hank Jongen, further explained why these scams
36 exist.
37
38 'Their main purpose is likely gaining advertising revenue through website traffic, rather
39 than phishing for personal information,' Mr Jongen said.
40
41 Centrelink aside, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has also reported a rise in scam
42 attempts.
43
44 Fraudsters have been tricking people into 'changes' to superannuation rules, fuelled by
17-5-2025 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 people's anxiety over a rocky couple of weeks.

2
3 Several scammers have claimed that starting 1 June, super preservation and withdrawal
4 rules are about to change.
5
6 'The maximum preservation age (the age when you can access your superannuation savings
7 on retirement) is 60 for anyone born from 1 July 1964,' Emma Rosenzweig, ATO deputy
8 commissioner for superannuation, clarified.
9
10 'Always consider the source of information you see.'
11
12 'If in doubt, go to trusted sources such as the ATO website, your super fund website, your
13 registered tax agent or licensed financial adviser,' Rosenzweig further advised.

14
15 Key Takeaways
16 • Services Australia warned Australians not to fall for online misinformation about
17 changes to Age Pension eligibility.
18 • There have been no changes to Age Pension eligibility or document verification
19 for pensioners.
20 • Scammers have been using fake websites and flashy headlines to lure people in
21 and harvest their personal and financial information.
22 • Authorities urged Australians to double-check websites and visit official Services
23 Australia social media channels for information.
24
25 Have you received a suspicious message regarding your Age Pension? Have you seen a
26 dodgy website announcing changes to superannuation? Share your experiences and stories
27 in the comments section below; your story could help protect fellow SDC members!
28 Reactions:Pierre-Poppi, June E, KimJay and 6 others
29 END QUOTE
30
31
32 Of the 47 persons provided with a job I view 23 stay and 24 out (in red colour) and so also
33 positions that are in red colour. Instead of wasting precious taxpayers monies on terrorising me
34 and others we would save a fortune by just getting rid of those persons and/or positions they
35 hold.
36
37 2 Governor-General
38 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
39 Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
40 may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure,
41 but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
42 Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
43
44 Meaning that the Governor-General by the constitution is limited in his/her powers “but subject
45 to this Constitution” and therefore cannot create departments and neither commission any
46 person to engage in matters not within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth!
47
48 While we have the purported prime Minister Anthony Albanese currently traveling the world,
49 this I view is not his function as we have a Minister for Foreign Affairs to do so. And in my view
50 Anthony Albanese by section 44 and 45 is not permitted to hold a seat in the parliament and

17-5-2025 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 neither was entitled to be a candidate in the 2025 political election. Likewise, many other
2 persons were in violation of Section 44 of the constitution and so not entitled to be a candidate!
3 If it is about seeking to avoid undue expenditure from Consolidated Revenue Funds then surely
4 this should be one of the first issues to be attended to.
5
6 Our constitutional framework is based upon a “responsible government” and an and as such
7 only one person can be a “responsible Minister”! Also, to have purported “Special Envoys” then
8 one has to ask how many persons are there to do the one job and still miserably fail to do so?
9 After all, if you have a Minister and a Assistant Minister and a Special Envoy and then a
10 Departmental head as well as numerous other managers in the end to many fat cats and as is
11 shown no proper organisation in place because in the end to many cooks are cooking and by this
12 what they are cooking up is without the right taste! Let us consider what the Framers of the
13 constitution held to be applicable!
14

15 VEHICLES-01
16
17
18
19 Let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution stated about the telephone, postal and other
20 services:
21
22
23 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
24 Australasian Convention)
25 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
26 It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which
27 carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of
28 the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
29 END QUOTE
30
31
32 (Writers note: Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo
33 opportunities for a Minister!)
34
35 And:
36 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
37 Australasian Convention)
38 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
39 If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal Government
40 all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other officers, who do not do
41 national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a large army of civil servants, the
42 influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
43 END QUOTE
44
45 (Writers note: Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants”
46 clearly this relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company)
47
48
49 The same principle applies to all Ministers and so also the Departments!
50
51 Also, a prime minister is no more but a “constitutional adviser” and not the head of any
52 government. It is the governor-General who is the CEO and head of the Government for and on
53 behalf of the British Crown/Monarch.
17-5-2025 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 Also, “Cabinet” has no constitutional powers to decide any Ministerial decision as it is no more
3 but a gathering of Minister to discuss certain policies between them but the “responsible
4 Minister” ultimately makes the decision and so being the final decision regardless if all others
5 present may not agree with such a decision, this as the “responsible Minister” ultimately is
6 accountable both to the Parliament as well as to the Governor-General.
7
8 Here we have a Minister for Finance, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, etc, and yet none of them
9 appears to be competent to ensure that the Budget is handed down in accordance with
10 constitutional requirements and permitting the constitutional system to be sapplied. For example
11 the Budget (money Bills – Apropriation and Taxation bills) are actually only valid for the
12 Financial year for which they are passed and they must be passed before the commencement oif
13 the next financial year and are so to say set in stone and cannot be amended or subjected to
14 alterations during the financial year they are applied. As such no such thing as a Mini budget.
15 Moreover, the Budget needs to be handed down as to allow a 3 month period for it to be re-
16 introduced and also for a possible DOUBLE DISSOLUTION election and as such with the 100
17 days of the return of the writs then a budget must be introduced no later then more than 6 months
18 before the new financial year commences on 1 July. Meaning that in 1975 Governor-General
19 Kerr was at fault for not ensuring that the budget was implemented on 1 July 1975 and no
20 amendment could be made!
21
22 Also how many incompetent persons will it take to understand what “citizenship” means and so
23 “Australian citizenship” where I succeeded with my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
24 MATTERS served upon all 9 Attorney Generals way back in 2002 and part of my successful
25 appeals on 19 July 2006 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka that there is no such thing as a nationality
26 being “Australian citizenship” as our true nationality was and remains to be “Subjects of the
27 British Crown”.
28
29 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
30 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
31
32 It is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state or of a territory
33 that he has any political rights in the Commonwealth.
34
35 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that Section 41 of the Constitution provided a
36 right to vote, as there was no need to qualify if one was an adult of the age of 21 to vote in
37 federal elections if one had franchise with a State.
38 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
39 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
40 And
41 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
42 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
43 Where the magistrate refused to hand down a reason of judgment, and so in writing also,
44 despite specifically requested by the Defendant, then this may indicate the magistrate was
45 bias, along with his comments that he was not going to consider “citizenship” issue as part of
46 grounds of the OBJECTION TO LEGAL JURISDICTION, even so this was also critical
47 to any decision to INVOKE LEGAL JURISDICTION or not.
48 This Court may hear matters DE NOVO but ought to be careful not to make the same or
49 similar errors and rob the Defendant of a FAIR and PROPER trial.
50 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
51 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
52 And
17-5-2025 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 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

2 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
3 The Defendant has in fact refused to vote in recent State elections and no prosecutions for this
4 followed, where the Defendant advised to have objections to vote in State elections! As a
5 matter of fact the State Attorney-General himself advised that there is no State citizenship!
6 Without State citizenship there can be no Australian citizenship (Commonwealth citizenship)
7 as both includes franchise. It is because of Federation that the then Colonies transferred
8 certain legislative powers from the Colonies (now States) to the Commonwealth of Australia
9 that by this obviously the right of a State citizen to vote who shall be their legislators was
10 partly transferred also to the Commonwealth of Australia by this, hence, no state citizen could
11 therefore be denied franchise in the Federal arena where such person had obtained State
12 franchise, as Section 41 of the Constitution protected that right.
13 At time of Federation and indeed at the time of the Commonwealth of Australia enacting
14 legislation as to voting, there was no general obligation for anyone to vote. The
15 Commonwealth of Australia began to make voting compulsory in 1911, this, even so it was
16 not compulsory in the States. By this, the Commonwealth of Australia unconstitutionally
17 infringed upon the freedoms of the electors. In the error that it could do so (legislate for
18 compulsory voting) failing to be aware that it was bound by the liberties existing at the time
19 the Constitution was created, and that it could not diminish or reduce any rights and
20 freedoms, regardless that any State may have done so since for its own State elections.
21 Subsequently States commenced to legislate also to make voting compulsory.
22
23 The following quotation of a document published by the Australian Electoral Commission
24 under the heading, “Compulsory Voting in Australia” by Tim Evans, Director Elections
25 Systems & Policy, Australian Electoral Commission, 16 January 2006;
26
27 • In 1915, consideration was given to introducing compulsory voting for a
28 proposed referendum. As the referendum was never held the idea wasn’t
29 pursued.
30
31 As such, while initially there was an issue to have this approved by way of Section 128 of the
32 Constitution referendum, this was never proceeded with.
33 Hence, it cannot be argued that this compulsory voting was approved by the electors!
34 While compulsory voting was introduced in 1915 in Queensland, and in the Commonwealth
35 of Australia federal political environment by way of a Bill in 1924, it nevertheless could not
36 circumvent the fact that it was not constitutionally permissible.
37
38 • The impact was immediate, with turnout at the 1925 election rising to over
39 91%.
40 • Victoria introduced compulsory voting in 1926, NSW and Tasmania in 1928,
41 WA in 1936 and SA in 1942.
42 • When enrolment and voting at federal elections was introduced for Australian
43 Aborigines in 1949 it was voluntary, and continued to be so until 1984 when
44 enrolment and voting became compulsory for all eligible electors.
45
46 As the Commonwealth of Australia only could legislate for the whole of the Commonwealth
47 (as the Framers of the Constitution made very clear during the Debates) and in 1949 the 1967
48 referendum had not been held, then clearly there was a conflict in that the Commonwealth of
49 Australia somehow did not make it compulsory for Aboriginals to vote, yet did so (albeit
50 wrongly) for others.

17-5-2025 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 Indeed, it still does not have it compulsory for those in the Antarctic. As such, it appears the
2 Federal Parliament legislate upon its wimps rather then to consider what is constitutionally
3 permissible and appropriate.
4
5 In view that the Defendant had from onset opposed the Magistrates Court of Victoria to
6 invoke legal (federal) jurisdiction and in fact the magistrate on 4-12-2002 made orders to have
7 those constitutional issues to be addressed then the Commonwealth Director of Public
8 Prosecutions clearly had an OBLIGATION to place before the magistrate on 16 and 17
9 November 2005 the set out of matters and why the Magistrate then could invoke jurisdiction.
10 This it never did.
11 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
12 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
13 And
14 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
15 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
16 The fact that the Defendant as one of his objections of voting in State elections had that he
17 was not constitutionally an “Australian citizen”, and challenged the validity of the Australian
18 Citizenship Act 1948 to purport otherwise, as he was never granted State citizenship, as the
19 Attorney-General himself made clear that it does not exist, then where the state has accepted
20 this, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions could not then circumvent the state
21 acceptance of this as to then pursue the defendant for allegedly FAILING TO VOTE in
22 federal elections! After all, the elections for Senators are of State interest as it is to represent
23 the State in the Senate in the Federal Parliament, and as such any charge for allegedly
24 FAILING TO VOTE in a Senate election is a State issue, as it are State electoral provisions.
25 While the Commonwealth of Australia may have the operation of Senate elections they are
26 and remain in principle depending upon State Governors issuing writs! For this, the
27 Commonwealth of Australia cannot pursue a matter that is essentially a State issue.
28 The modus operandi might lie with the Commonwealth but it nevertheless in essential issue
29 is a State issue. As the State has refrained from making any charges against the Defendant as
30 to an alleged FAILING TO VOTE then the issue arises what are the charges about of
31 allegedly FAILING TO VOTE? Is the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution
32 pursuing in Court, do they relate to either Senate or House of Representative elections or
33 both?
34 If the State of Victoria itself does not pursue any charges then can somehow the Director of
35 Public Prosecutions nevertheless pursue a charge in regard of Senate elections? Or is it just
36 that the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecutions himself is totally unable to explain
37 what on earth the charges are really about?
38 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
39 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
40 And
41 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
42 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
43 The Defendants submits, that “Australian citizenship” can only be obtained by
44 obtaining “State citizenship”, as it is not a nationality, but has to deal with being a
45 recognised “State citizens” where one AUTOMATICALLY then obtain “Australian
46 citizenship” (“Commonwealth citizenship” which includes franchise. Because lawyers
47 require to make an “Oath of alliance” when seeking to be admitted to the BAR to practice,
48 which now is to a LEGAL FICTIONAL “Queen of Australia” (as set out further in this
49 ADDRESS TO THE COURT), while being a Subjects of the British Crown, (as also set
50 out further), then there is a clear conflict for any judge to deal with this matter which
51 would in effect involve his/her own personal legal position if qualified to be a judge of this
52 Court. Albeit judicial officers may not be aware that their true constitutionally nationality
53 is and remain to be British nationals and so any “Oath of alliance” to a LEGAL
17-5-2025 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 FICTIONAL “Queen of Australia” would be a conflict. Where the High Court of

2 Australia in Sue v Hill ousted Heather Hill of being a member of parliament upon the
3 basis that she was having alliance to a foreign Queen, then as set out further in this
4 ADDRESS TO THE COURT, the same applies to all other persons, including judicial
5 officers, who by birth (including all those persons born within the Commonwealth of
6 Australia) or by naturalization are in fact “subjects of the British Crown.”
7
8 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
9 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
10 are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
11 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
12 comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in
13 the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
14 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
15 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
16 and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
17 interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
18 scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
19 colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
20
21 Again;
22 we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
23 Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
24
25 The High Court of Australia deriving its judicial powers within the Constitution
26 (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) cannot go beyond what is
27 embedded in the Constitution, hence the constitutional problem exist that judicial officers
28 are constitutionally (by birth or naturalization) “subjects of the British Crown” but
29 wrongly excluded by the Sue v Hill decision as being deemed to be by this having alliance
30 to a foreign Monarch.
31 In view that by the Sue v Hill ruling the effect is that all judicial officers within the
32 Commonwealth of Australia then are having alliance to a foreign Monarch then none of the
33 judicial officers (including those of the High Court of Australia) could possibly determine
34 their own status as only the Privi Council could do so.
35 As set out further in this document Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution was provided for
36 by the British Parliament to naturalize “aliens” to become “British nationals”, and it never
37 included any purported “Australian nationality”. The High Court of Australia has no
38 constitutional powers to amend the Constitution as to purport this subsection 51(xix) has a
39 different meaning then intended by the Framers of the Constitution, and hence all persons
40 born in the Commonwealth of Australia and those “naturalized” are and remain “subjects
41 of the British Crown” with their alliance to the British Monarch. As also set out
42 extensively further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT, no one can have alliance to two
43 Monarchs and therefore any Oath that purports to be to a “Queen of Australia” is a
44 disqualification to serve as a judicial officer. With laws (legislation) now being enacted
45 under the name of “Queen of Australia” then all laws so enacted are constitutionally
46 ULTRA VIRES and so without legal force. This applies also to Proclamations and writs.
47 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
48 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
49 And
50 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

17-5-2025 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 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

2 In my 30 September 2003 published book (Of which 4 copies were provided that day to the High
3 Court of Australia Melbourne Registry, and a further 4 copies on 3 October 2003);
4
5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
6 A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
7 ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
8
9 I did set out then that with those who had joined Pauline Hanson One Nation were in fact
10 members regardless of what was stated otherwise on the flip side of their membership card.
11 Subsequently, in November 2003, the Court of Appeal precisely used this to overturn Pauline
12 Hanson and David Ettridge convictions.
13
14 Because the Commonwealth of Australia was specifically denied to define/declare citizenship by
15 the Framers of the Constitution then the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is ULTRA VIRES,
16 for so far it purports to define/declare citizenship and by this all persons natural born in the
17 Commonwealth of Australia and those naturalized within the powers of subsection 51(xix) of the
18 Constitution are and remain in fact British nationals. By the, albeit ill-conceived judgment of
19 Sue v Hill therefore are deemed to be under an “Oath of alliance” of a “foreign monarch”. All
20 judgments handed down in the name of the “Queen of Australia” therefore are a legal nullity.
21
22 OBJECTION TO LEGAL JURISDICTION
23
24 The Defendant (Appellant) also relies upon the material, the ADDRESS TO THE COURT’s
25 that were previously filed in proceedings held in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg,
26 including the OBJECTION TO LEGAL JURISDICTION, that was made from onset in
27 August 2002 when the initial proceedings commenced, and ever since maintained.
28
29 Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
30 "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it
31 must be proven."
32
33 Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
34 - "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven" .
35
36 Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,
37 - "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
38
39 Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
40 - "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination."
41
42 Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
43 - "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings
44 are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification,
45 and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack."
46
47 It means that the Prosecutor has the onus to prove jurisdiction and must disprove each and
48 every objection that I place before this Court in support of my OBJECTION TO LEGAL
49 JURISDICTION.
50 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
51 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
52 And
17-5-2025 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 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

2 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
3 The Defendant submits, that in view that the High Court of Australia itself is on record to
4 indicate that “citizenship” is not a known constitutional power, as further outlined below in this
5 ADDRESS TO THE COURT, then as Latham J stated; “If it is beyond power it is invalid
6 ab initio.”.
7
8 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann;
9 Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
10 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
11 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders
12 made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel
13 safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the
14 earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
15
16 Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408)
17 "Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief
18 Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess
19 of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to
20 disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but
21 such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not
22 valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it
23 is invalid ab initio."
24
25 The Defendant submits, that any judicial officer who was natural born and/or naturalized was
26 and remained to be a British national with an alliance to the British Crown. And where such
27 judicial officer made an oath of alliance to the LEGAL FICTION “Queen of Australia” then
28 this judicial officer has an purported oath of alliance to two different monarchs and cannot be
29 deemed to be a acceptable judicial officer for purpose to make judicial determinations.
30 The Defendant submits, that as also further set out below, where any natural born and/or
31 naturalized person has made an oath of alliance to the LEGAL FICTION “Queen of Australia”,
32 then this would be an act of sedition.
33 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
34 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
35 And
36 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
37 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
38 Therefore, it is beyond question that Section 44 of the Constitution did not deny a person to
39 stand for election and be elected but only be prevented from taking up the seat if for some reason
40 this person is under a disability unless the disability is disposed of prior to taking up the seat.
41 It also means that a Member of one House of the Parliament can be elected for another House
42 but has top relinquish the original held seat if desiring to take up the new seat elected for.
43 Meaning Bronwyn Brishop never needed to resign as a Senator to stand for election for the
44 House of Representatives, as she could have remained a Senator and only vacated the Senate seat
45 if elected for the House of Representatives. As the Framers of the Constitution stated; “They will
46 be capable of being elected whilst holding the other position. ” and this underlines that
47 holding a certain position such as an “office of profit with the Commonwealth of Australia”
48 itself was not a bar to be a candidate, but was a bar to take up a seat in the Parliament! As set out
49 further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT the word “CHOSEN” in sections 11, 43 and 44 of
50 the Constitution has not them meaning being elected during an election but being “chosen” byu
51 the governor of the State or the Governor-General to take a seat in the parliament.The Defendant
52 views that the High Court of Australia has caused considerable misconceptions as to the true
17-5-2025 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 intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and for this it is essential this is avoided in regard
2 of any judicial decision regarding “citizenship”.
3 This matter is also extensively canvases in my 30 September 2003 book;
4
5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
6 A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
7 ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
8
9 For example, the history of the creation to what eventually became Section 44 of the
10 Constitution is set out extensively in particularly also in CHAPTER 11 PHIL CLEARLY
11 DISSASTER, in the document; Chapter 11A Public service.doc. Other matters relating to
12 Section 44 are also referred to in such as in the in the following Chapters;
13
14 Folder; CHAPTER 00 Set out about CITIZENSHIP
15 Document; Chapter 00A Set out about CITIZENSHIP.doc
16
17 Folder; CHAPTER 11 PHIL CLEARLY DISSASTER
18 Document; Chapter 11A Public service.doc
19 Document; Chapter 11E RESTRICTION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.doc
20
21 Folder; CHAPTER 33 CONSTITUTION CONVENTIONS;
22 Document; [email protected]
23 Document; [email protected]
24
25 Folder; CHAPTER 75 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
26 Document; Address to the court-8.doc
27 Document; Address to the court-9-UPDATE.doc
28 Document; CHAPTER 75 ADDRESS TO THE COURT.doc
29
30 The High Court of Australia never itself ever conducted such extensive research when deciding
31 the Sue v Hill and the Sykes v Cleary cases, and by this ended up to hand down judgments based
32 on errors of constitutional law.
33 As such, the Defendant has made this “citizenship” and “who can be a candidate” very much
34 an issue over the years relevant to elections and very much is a part of this case that there were
35 no FREE elections (unrestrained elections) where people are being denied to be candidates
36 purportedly because of constitutional provisions which in fact do not exist as such as is shown in
37 the example referred to previously.
38
39 That Holmes v Angwin, (1906) 4 (Pt 1) CLR 297 at 309. Barton J said;
40 "The character of the jurisdiction which has been exercised by Parliaments as to election
41 petitions is purely incidental to the legislative power; it has nothing to do with the ordinary
42 determination of the rights of parties who are litigants."
43
44 The same applies to the Court of Disputed Returns, where the High Court of Australia is acting
45 for and on behalf of the Parliament, and not as a Court of Law to uphold the rights of the parties
46 in principle. Hence one ought to be very careful to seek to apply judicial decisions of the Court
47 of Disputed Returns as they are not binding in that regard, as are ordinary judgments of the High
48 Court of Australia. Gummow J decision in the Ned Kelly case not only defies the intentions of
49 the Framers of the Constitution but is made on behalf of the Parliament, and as such not binding
50 as any other Authority might be considered of a Court of law operating in normal judicial
51 manner. As such also, the Prosecutors issue of what Gummow J may have stated in that case
17-5-2025 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 about publications of the Gazette is not relevant where it defies what is embedded in the
2 Constitution. The Proclamation was never published in a Gazette that showed the legal
3 requirement demanded in the Act Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) that it must show the wording
4 “Government Printer” and was neither published as required by the Framers of the
5 Constitution before it could be acted upon. Therefore the election process never even
6 commenced within constitutional and other legal requirements and as such in effect the elections
7 were LEGAL FICTIONS, and so their results are and remain ULTRA VIRES and so without
8 legal force.
9 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
10 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
11 And
12 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
13 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
14 The Defendant submits, that he has in an elaborate way made constitutional based objections
15 against the validity of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, to declare/define citizenship as he
16 submit, “citizenship” is a State legislative power. Further more, he submit, that constitutionally
17 ss51(xix) provides only for the “naturalization” of “aliens” to become “British nationals”,
18 which when residing in the Commonwealth of Australia are referred to as Australians as much as
19 are “aliens” residing in the Commonwealth of Australia and as such where the Attorney-General
20 of the State of Victoria made known there is no State citizenship then the Defendant submits,
21 there can be no Australian citizenship either. In any event, the Defendant submits, that the
22 Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) enacted within subsection 51(xxvi) is in fact unconstitutional
23 but by it causes a disability against all Australians and for this not a single Australia has
24 franchise as this is in the citizenship which is removed by the effect of this Act.
25
26 The Defendant submits, that the Court cannot invoke legal jurisdiction unless first the High
27 Court of Australia has declared the “legislation, part legislation, proclamation and/or writ(s)”
28 declared INTRA VIRES, if it were to do so, as they remain ULTRA VIRES, and as such any
29 legislation the Prosecutor relies upon is not legally enforce without such declaration. The
30 Defendant cites for example the fact that the proclamation was not published in accordance with
31 the requirements of Section 32 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1918 (the
32 Constitution) and that his evidence on Court file proves that the writs were issued prior to the
33 proclamation having been published and as such the election process depending upon valid
34 published proclamation never even commenced. The Defendant submits, there were no valid
35 elections held, and as such in that regard s245 of the CEA1918 in that manner neither can apply,
36 as it requires a valid election.
37 More over, the Defendant submits, that on 15 April 1898 the Framers of the Constitution (the
38 Delegates to the Constitution Convention) refused to allow compulsory enrolment and voting
39 and as this was never before considered by any courts all and any authorities about being
40 obligated to vote were ill conceived and this opens the constitutional based objection against
41 Section 245 CEA1918 in that it contradicts the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
42 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
43 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
44 And
45 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
46 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
47
48 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
49 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
50 And
51 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
52 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
53
17-5-2025 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 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

2 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
3 And
4 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
5 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
6 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
7 Mr. THYNNE:
8 The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a
9 unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central
10 federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other
11 powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles
12 connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics
13 of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its
14 language. He says:
15 One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
16 either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority
17 above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state
18 legislatures, existing under the constitution.
19
20 Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
21 “The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law'
22 Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all.
23 If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our
24 predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose
25 between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not,
26 in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should
27 be ultimately right..
28 Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to
29 consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least
30 emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly
31 wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to
32 the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed.”
33
34 It is a matter of fact that I was issued with a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” No.
35 ME9401317C on the 28th day of March 1994. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Director
36 of Public Prosecutions contest the issue of this certificate.
37 The certificate states;
38 QUOTE
39 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
40 Australian citizenship Act 1948
41
42 Certificate of Australian Citizenship
43
44 GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL
45 Born on 7 th June 1947
46
47 having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
48 prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
49 and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.
50
17-5-2025 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 I the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,

2 Grant this Certificate of Australian citizenship to the abovenamed applicant who is
3 an Australian citizen on and after 28 th March 1994.
4
5 Issued by the authority
6 Of the Minister
7 For Immigration and
8 Ethnic Affairs.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 By marriage, on 28 March 2001, I became Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka
12
13 Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
14
15 Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state,
16 allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with
17 respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is
18 a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and
19 citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
20 compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political
21 tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is
22 a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship
23 is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is
24 repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
25 differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it
26 can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in
27 which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously
28 enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth,
29 and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the
30 inherent rights of man.
31
32 And
33 These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for,
34 though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain
35 would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that
36 she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the
37 Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in
38 support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two
39 sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of
40 withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
41 And
42 The power of naturalizing has been vested in several of the state governments, and it
43 now exists in the general government; but the power to restrain or regulate the right
44 of emigration, is no where surrendered by the people; and it must be repeated, that,
45 what has not been given, ought not to be assumed. It may be said, however, that such
46 a power is necessary to the government, and that it is implied in the authority to
47 regulate the business of naturalization. In considering these positions, it must be
48 admitted, that although an individual has a right to expatriate himself, he has not a
49 right to seduce others from their country. Hence, those who forcibly, or seductively,
50 take away a citizen, commit an act, which [p*143] forms a fair object of municipal
51 police; and a conspiracy or combination, to leave a country, might, likewise be

17-5-2025 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 properly guarded against. Such laws would not be an infraction of the natural right
2 of individuals; for, the natural rights of man are personal; he has no right to will for
3 others, and he does so, in effect, whenever he moves the mind of another to his
4 purpose, by fear, by fraud, or by persuasion.
5 And
6 But naturalization and expatriation are matters of internal police; and must depend
7 upon the municipal law, though they may be illustrated and explained by the
8 principles of general jurisprudence. It is true, that the judicial power extends to a
9 variety of objects; but the Supreme Court is only a branch of that power; and
10 depends on Congress for what portion it shall have, except in the cases of
11 ambassadors, &c. particularly designated in the constitution. The power of declaring
12 whether a citizen shall be entitled in any form to expatriate himself, or, if entitled, to
13 prescribe the form, is not given to the Supreme Court; and, yet, that power will be
14 exercised by the court, if they shall decide against the expatriation of Captain Talbot.
15 Let it not, after all, be understood, that the natural, loco-motive, right of a free
16 citizen, is independent of every social obligation. In time of war, it would be treason to
17 migrate to any enemy's country and join his forces, under the pretext of expatriation.
18 1 Dall. Rep. 53, and, even in time of peace, it would be, reprehensible (say the writers
19 on the law of nature and nations) to desert a country labouring under great
20 calamities. So, if a man acting under the obligations of an oath of office, withdraws to
21 elude his responsibility, he changes his habitation, but not his citizenship. It is not,
22 however, private relations, but public relations; private responsibility, but public
23 responsibility; that can affect the right: for, where the reason of the law ceases, the
24 law itself must, also, cease. There is not a private relation, for which a man is not as
25 liable by local, as by natural, allegiance;--after, as well as before, his expatriation: He
26 must take care of his family, he must pay his debts, wherever he resides; and there is
27 no security in restraining emigration, as to those objects, since, with respect to them,
28 withdrawing is as effectual, as expatriating. Nor is it enough to impair the right of
29 expatriation, that other nations are at war; it must be the country of the emigrant. No nation
30 has a right to interfere in the interior police of another: the rights and duties of citizenship,
31 to be conferred, or released, are matter of interior police; and yet, if a foreign war could
32 affect [p*145] the question, every time that a fresh power entered into a war, a new
33 restraint would be imposed upon the natural rights of the citizens of a neutral country;
34 which, considering the constant warfare that afflicts the world, would amount to a
35 perpetual controul. But the true distinction appears to be this:--The citizens of the neutral
36 country may still exercise the right of expatriation, but the belligerent power is entitled to
37 say, "the act of joining our enemies, flagrante bello, shall not be a valid act of
38 expatriation." By this construction, the duty a nation owes to itself, the sacred rights of the
39 citizen, the law of nations, and the faith of treaties, will harmonize, though moving in
40 distinct and separate courses. To pursue the subject one step further: A man cannot owe
41 allegiance to two sovereigns. 1Bl. Com. He cannot be citizen of two republics. If a man
42 has a right to expatriate, and another nation has a right and disposition to adopt him,
43 it is a compact between the two parties, consummated by the oath of allegiance. A
44 man's last will, as to his citizenship, may be likened to his last will, as to his estate; it
45 supersedes every former disposition; and when either takes effect, the party, in one
46 case, is naturally dead, in the other, he is civilly dead;--but in both cases, as good
47 Christians and good republicans, it must be presumed that he rises to another, if not
48 to a better, life and country. An act of expatriation, likewise, is susceptible of various
49 kinds of proof. The Virginia law has selected one, when the state permits her citizens
50 to depart; but it is not, perhaps, either the most authentic, or the most conclusive that
51 the case admits. It may be done obscurely in a distant county court; and even after
17-5-2025 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 the emigrant is released from Virginia, to what nation does he belong? He may have
2 entered no other country, nor incurred any obligation to any other sovereign. Not
3 being a citizen of Virginia, he cannot be deemed a citizen of the United States. Shall he
4 be called a citizen of the world; a human balloon, detached and buoyant in the
5 political atmosphere, gazed at wherever he passes, and settled wherever he touches?
6 But, on the other hand, the act of swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is
7 unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at once, the claims of the deserted, and
8 creating the right of the adopted, country. Sir William Blackstone, therefore, considers it
9 as the strongest, though an ineffectual, effort to emancipate a British subject from his
10 natural allegiance; and the existing constitution of France declares it expressly to be a
11 criterion of expatriation. The same principle operates, when the naturalization law of the
12 United States provides, that the whole ceremony of initiation shall be performed in the
13 American courts; and if it is here considered as the proof of adoption, shall it not be
14 considered, also, as the test of expatriation? If America [p*146] makes citizens in that way,
15 shall we not allow to other nations, the privilege of the same process? In short, to admit
16 that Frenchmen may be made citizens by an oath of allegiance to America, is, virtually, to
17 admit, that Americans may be expatriated by an oath of allegiance to France. After this
18 discussion of principles, forming a necessary basis for the facts in this case, it is insisted,
19 1st, That Talbot was a naturalized citizen of the French Republic at the time of receiving a
20 commission to command the privateer, and of capturing the Magdalena. He left this
21 country with the design to emigrate; and the act of expatriation must be presumed to be
22 regular, according to the laws of France, since it is certified by the municipality of Point a
23 Pitre, by the French Consul, and by the Governor of Guadaloupe. 2d, That Redick was
24 also, a naturalized citizen of the French Republic, when he purchased the vessel, and
25 received a commission to employ her as a privateer.
26
27 And
28 Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States.
29 Within the united States of America a person granted naturalization is also granted citizenship,
30 where as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not provide for this.
31 Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.
32 As already extensively placed before the magistrates in previous proceedings (upon which I rely
33 before this Court also) some of the “Colonies” (now States) naturalized “aliens” and others
34 didn’t however each and every Colony did have legislation in regard of citizenship and the rights
35 to franchise.
36 The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
37 made clear that “naturalization” powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
38 be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
39 “CITIZENSHIP” legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
40 Commonwealth of Australia.
41 Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to
42 define/declare “CITIZENSHIP” but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
43 I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
44 qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
45 position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
46 Constitution to do that.

17-5-2025 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 Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
2 any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
3 as a British subject.
4 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
5 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
6 are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
7 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
8 comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in
9 the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
10 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
11 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
12 and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
13 interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
14 scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
15 colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I
16 see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British
17 subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament
18 to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various
19 quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the
20 effect that we ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have
21 considered this matter very carefully, and it has seemed to me that it would be most
22 difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is
23 in the Constitution of the United States of America a cast-iron definition of
24 citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable, because, among other
25 things, it says that a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized
26 citizen within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it has been found that that
27 excludes the children of citizens born outside the limits of this jurisdiction. That
28 shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have placed a proposed
29 clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me
30 surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned
31 members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any
32 definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable
33 to implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it would be
34 better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
35 yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
36 Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
37 Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
38 the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
39 will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
40 citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to
41 the citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
42 people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
43 naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
44 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
45 come here.
46 Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
47 the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
17-5-2025 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 of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
2 of the Commonwealth?
3 Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
4 Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
5 Commonwealth?
6 And
7 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
8 Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
9 power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and
10 learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this
11 Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
12 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we
13 acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is
14 put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot
15 on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a
16 lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to
17 become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
18 having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-
19 "Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out
20 of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to
21 take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
22 And
23 Mr. OCONNOR.-I have said that I do not see that such a trust in the Federal Parliament
24 would be effective. I sympathize with the honorable member's view, but I think it will be
25 carried out by some kind of definition of citizenship, and I was pointing out the only
26 aspect in which it appears to me it might be desirable to have some such definition, and
27 that is, you are creating new rights to citizens of the Commonwealth as citizens of the
28 Commonwealth in regard to your courts. You establish courts for the Commonwealth, and
29 every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to the use of those courts.
30 Mr. HIGGINS.-Who is he?
31 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
32 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
33 And
34 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
35 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
36 The following part of transcript indicates how the High Court of Australia itself is confusing
37 “citizenship” with “nationality”.
38
39 Dang, Ex parte - Re MIMA M118/2001 (18 April 2002)
40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
41 Office of the Registry
42 Melbourne No M25 of 2001
43
44 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
45 AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 18 APRIL 2002, AT 10.17 AM
46
47 KIRBY J: Your clients were not British subjects.
17-5-2025 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 MR MAXWELL: That is so. If I might move immediately to the question of what

2 Patterson decided. In our respectful submission, what Patterson decided was this, that
3 allegiance, not citizenship, is the touchstone for determining alien status.
4 KIRBY J: There is only one reference to citizenship in the Constitution, is there not, and
5 that is the disqualification that was considered in Sue v Hill?
6 MR MAXWELL: Yes, your Honour.
7 KIRBY J: There is no other reference to the concept and, indeed, we did not have a
8 Citizenship Act until quite late in the history of the Commonwealth.
9 MR MAXWELL: One of the critical aspects which comes through clearly in the
10 judgments, both the dissenting and the majority judgments in Patterson, is the point your
11 Honour has just adverted to: alien is a concept of our Constitution, citizenship is a concept
12 of our statute law. Your Honours Justices Gummow and Hayne in the joint judgment put in
13 these terms the proposition advanced by the prosecutor in Patterson, namely, at paragraph
14 [223]:
15 alienage and citizenship . . . do not occupy the relevant universe of discourse -
16 That, we would respectfully adopt, though your Honours disagreed in the result, as being
17 the proposition which the majority did endorse. That is to say, it does not follow that
18 because a person is a non-citizen he or she is, by definition, an alien because you must be
19 one or the other.
20 What Patterson held and why Nolan had to be overruled was that there is a category of
21 non-citizen non-alien. That is what your Honours held by majority Taylor was. He was not
22 a citizen and he was not an alien.
23 GUMMOW J: I should make clear to you I do not regard that matter as closed.
24 MR MAXWELL: I am indebted to your Honour.
25 GUMMOW J: It seems to me absolutely fundamental.
26 MR MAXWELL: It is absolutely fundamental and, in our respectful submission, there
27 can be no conclusion, with respect, other than that is what this Court found because Mr - - -
28 GUMMOW J: I am not so sure about that. The Solicitor-General goes into all of this.
29 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, we note with some surprise that less than a year after
30 that decision was handed down, the Commonwealth is inviting this Court to reopen it and
31 overrule it if it says what we say it says.
32 GUMMOW J: The question really is whether it should have overruled Nolan. Now, I will
33 not hold you up.
34 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, in our respectful submission, this Court did overrule
35 Nolan. Four Justices of the Court addressed the question whether it should be overruled
36 and each of them decided for reasons given that it should and it is no longer the law in this
37 country, in our respectful submission, and we will go further and say that necessarily Pochi
38 was at best left under a considerable cloud, if not necessarily overruled by that overruling.
39 GUMMOW J: It seems to me what I was putting to you really can be put to one side
40 because you have to go further in this case, and that is the real point.
41 MR MAXWELL: Indeed, your Honour. Plainly enough - - -
42 KIRBY J: As I understand your argument, it is that until Taylor there was clear authority
43 that there was a simple clear criterion for alienage, non-citizen.
44 MR MAXWELL: Exactly so.
45 KIRBY J: After Taylor, whatever is the criterion, the base has shifted.
46 MR MAXWELL: Yes, your Honour.
47 KIRBY J: It did not have to shift further than British subjects to resolve the issue of
48 Patterson.
49 MR MAXWELL: That is so.
50 KIRBY J: But you say, having shifted the basis, a new, stable basis must be found and
51 therefore this case presents the obligation to find that new, stable basis.
17-5-2025 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 MR MAXWELL: Exactly so.

2 GUMMOW J: And what is the stable basis?
3 MR MAXWELL: The starting point is that the obligation of allegiance can come into
4 existence between a person and the Queen of Australia otherwise than by the taking out of
5 citizenship. The next question is, by what criteria is the establishment of that obligation to
6 be determined - I am sorry, your Honour?
7 GAUDRON J: You say "can". Did Patterson go further than say at a certain time it could
8 come into operation by that method in respect of a certain category of people?
9 MR MAXWELL: That is so, but - - -
10 GAUDRON J: Yes. Well, you have to go beyond that to say that since, when? At all
11 relevant times it has been possible and it continues to be possible?
12 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, all I need to establish is that at the date of the relevant
13 decisions the obligation of allegiance had been assumed by these individuals. It is quite
14 separate, of course, from the discussion which was necessarily engaged in for Patterson
15 about the evolution of the Crown in right of Australia and its separation from Britain.
16 These are, plainly, individuals who have never been British subjects. This is a different
17 case. But as his Honour Justice Kirby has put, we will be inviting the Court to explore this
18 category of non - - -
19 GUMMOW J: We do not set off on exploration tasks. We respond to submissions and we
20 are trying to find what your submission is.
21 MR MAXWELL: Of course, your Honour.
22 GUMMOW J: You can tantalise us with this notion of a stable basis. The question is:
23 what is it?
24 MR MAXWELL: In these cases - - -
25 GUMMOW J: Bearing in mind that Patterson was, on one view of it, all about the
26 changing nature of the British Commonwealth, to use that expression.
27 MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, we put the stable basis on three bases in these cases as
28 set out in our submission. First, we say that each of these individuals renounced his
29 allegiance to his country of birth by fleeing from a regime which could not guarantee him
30 protection.
31 GUMMOW J: How do notions of allegiance work with republican systems of
32 government? As I understand it, the whole notion of citizenship dates back to the
33 American and French Revolutions, where they had to replace notions of allegiance which
34 were monarchical with something else and they devised the notion of citizenship. These
35 gentlemen never owed allegiance to any sovereign, did they?
36 MR MAXWELL: No, though your Honour will - - -
37 KIRBY J: Although they would have been born during the reign of Prince Sihanouk.
38 Cambodia was not a separate colony of France; it was a protectorate. So I think that is
39 something we would not know without some detail.
40 GUMMOW J: That is right.
41 MR MAXWELL: But, your Honour, in our respectful submission, as a matter of principle
42 this will not turn on whether a person came from a country which was a monarchy or a
43 republic. The concept of allegiance - - -
44 GUMMOW J: The point I am trying to make to you is that notions of allegiance come out
45 of English medieval feudalism. That is where it comes from - monarchical feudalism.
46 MR MAXWELL: With respect, we fully appreciate that. As your Honours in the lengthy
47 joint judgment explained, the concept has developed very significantly since the original
48 notion of personal loyalty to a lord. It became, and it was declared in the Court of Queen's
49 Bench in the 1880s, as your Honours pointed out, that it changed from a personal
50 obligation or an obligation to the sovereign in his or her personal capacity to an obligation
51 to the sovereign in his or her political capacity. That is just one respect in which the
17-5-2025 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 discussion about allegiance in the 21st century is a different discussion from that which it
2 would have been under more confined notions.
3 HAYNE J: And it is pointed up by your proposition that each renounced allegiance to the
4 country of his birth because the regime of the day would not protect him.
5 MR MAXWELL: Exactly so.
6 HAYNE J: But is allegiance concerned with allegiance to the government? Is it more
7 abstracted a notion than allegiance to whatever regime is in power?
8 GAUDRON J: There is a further question of course too and that is, by whose law is this
9 renunciation to be determined? That was addressed in Sykes and the general principle of
10 international law is that that is determined by the laws of the country of which the person
11 was a citizen or to which he or she owed allegiance.
12 MR MAXWELL: Yes, your Honour.
13 GAUDRON J: So it is not a simple question, I should have thought.
14 MR MAXWELL: No, and it is not necessary for our argument, with respect, that there
15 have been no renunciation.
16 GAUDRON J: Well - - -
17 MR MAXWELL: It is not. It happens to be the fact and it makes our cases a fortiori, but
18 what is the critical question is whether it can be said of the person that he has assumed the
19 obligation of allegiance and our submission puts it that it - - -
20 GAUDRON J: And you put that as a one-way traffic as well.
21 MR MAXWELL: Well, with respect, no we do not. We gratefully accept the analysis of
22 their Honours in the joint dissenting judgment, which points out that changes in the
23 relationship of allegiance can occur either by the joint act of the parties to it, the subject
24 and the sovereign, or by the unilateral act of either, which, apart from anything else,
25 enables us to put to one side the old notion that allegiance was perpetual and the natural-
26 born subject could never give it up. The concept of naturalisation scotched that notion 100
27 years ago. It can be given up by a formal act. We submit that one would expect to find a
28 parallel notion of renunciation by conduct, but we accept - and our learned friends say just
29 because you have renounced your citizenship of another country does not mean you have
30 become a citizen of Australia. Well, we accept that. We do not assert that the renunciation
31 somewhere else makes you a subject of the Queen of Australia. There needs to be an act or
32 a course of conduct of which it can be said that this person enjoys the protection of the
33 Queen of Australia and owes her obligations of allegiance.
34 GLEESON CJ: At which stage did your clients cease to owe allegiance to Cambodia or
35 Vietnam respectively?
36 MR MAXWELL: At the time they sought refuge in refugee camps or, alternatively, upon
37 the grant of permanent residence visas to each of them, enabling them to come from the
38 refugee camp to Australia. At that point, we have argued in our submission that the self-
39 description as a refugee is the explanation or the manifestation of the renunciation.
40 GLEESON CJ: They are interesting alternatives, in practice, because if the former is
41 correct, they would have been in the same situation even if they had been refused visas.
42 MR MAXWELL: That is so. Again, they were granted visas and that means that - and we
43 will take your Honours in due course to the findings of fact in the Tribunal in each case -
44 each of these persons was a refugee at the time and, as I understand it, there is no dispute
45 about that. We do not say that an application for refugee status was made and determined
46 in Australia. There is no evidence that that occurred. Nor is there any doubt but that they
47 were refugees in the sense in which that term is understood - defined in the Convention.
48 Your Honours will see in the material a question arises before the Tribunal "whether the
49 protection obligations which Australia owed under the Convention still obtained as at the
50 date of the Tribunal review?" Held: "No they don't. Conditions have changed in Cambodia
51 or Vietnam. The protection obligation does not subsist."
17-5-2025 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 To come back to your Honour's question. The assertion of refugee status is the act of
2 renunciation because it is a statement that, "I cannot rely on the sovereign government of
3 my country to protect me." Indeed, that language is used in the Convention itself.
4 GLEESON CJ: Why did they need visas? I wondered if it was because they were aliens.
5 MR MAXWELL: Well, they otherwise had no right to enter Australia.
6 GUMMOW J: You seem to be asserting they did. Of course HYPERLINK
7 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Constitution - - -
8 MR MAXWELL: As a matter of international law - - -
9 GUMMOW J: Forget about international law, because HYPERLINK
10 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Constitution operated in
11 some magical way.
12 MR MAXWELL: No, your Honour. We conceded before Justice Hayne that these people
13 had not - I think we conceded they were aliens at the point of arrival. We will seek to
14 qualify that concession by the protection allegiance argument we have made in our reply.
15 We start with the proposition that Australia owed obligations of protection to these
16 refugees under the 1951 Convention. At that point there was an acceptance of what is
17 described in the Refugee Convention in these terms, and it is in the material, a person is,
18 "unable or . . . unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
19 What is helpful in this analysis, in our respectful submission, is what Sir John Salmond, in
20 the Law Quarterly Review article that we will take your Honours to, and the House of
21 Lords in Joyce refer to as "the reciprocal obligations of protection by the sovereign to the
22 subject and allegiance by the subject to the sovereign."
23 KIRBY J: Could I just ask a factual matter, that is partly a legal matter. Was there any
24 impediment to your clients becoming naturalised Australian citizens?
25 MR MAXWELL: Not that I am aware of, your Honour, no. No application was made. At
26 a certain point they may have, by their criminal convictions, become unable to satisfy the
27 "good character" requirement.
28 KIRBY J: Does one draw any inference at all from the fact that in the interval between
29 their arrival as children and their evictions, that they could have signified their allegiance
30 to the Queen of Australia and the people of Australia by becoming citizens but omitted,
31 failed, refused to do so?
32 MR MAXWELL: In our respectful submission, no. One draws no inference because - and
33 this comes back to the fundamental point - the assumption of citizenship - we have put this
34 in terms in the outline - is a sufficient condition of allegiance but it is not a necessary
35 condition, and that is what Patterson held. If that is correct, then the non-taking out of
36 citizenship does not disqualify a person from being a subject of the Queen of Australia.
37 GAUDRON J: But are we not a little bit off the track here? From a constitutional point of
38 view we are concerned with aliens and non-aliens. At least in the case of persons who are
39 not and never have been British subjects is it not the case that it is well within the
40 legislative power of the Parliament to decide and define who are and who are not aliens?
41 CALLINAN J: That is what Mr Justice Barton said in Ferrando v Pearce.
42 GAUDRON J: But is that not the case, that it has legislative power to define who are and
43 who are not aliens?
44 MR MAXWELL: Yes, but, with respect, to exclude from a statutory definition of aliens -
45 let me put that differently - to include within a statutory definition of aliens someone who
46 is not is beyond power.
47 GLEESON CJ: But if granting a visa to someone produces the result that they are not an
48 alien, then the entire scheme of the Migration Act 1997 has miscarried, has it not? Its long
49 title is it is "An Act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and the
50 departure or deportation from Australia of aliens". Visas can be cancelled, can they not?
51
17-5-2025 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
2 By the reasoning of the Framers of the Constitution (the Delegates to the Constitution
3 Conventions) a “subject to the Crown” was anyone who was subjected to the laws of the Crown
4 regardless if they were aliens or not.
5 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
6 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
7 And
8 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
9 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
10 Is not correct in that while normally the imperial government can make specific legislation to
11 amend a constitutional enactment, in this case it has ousted itself of doing so by including the
12 Section 128 provision.
13
14 Hansard 17-4-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15 Mr. SYMON:
16 There can be no doubt as to the position taken up
17 by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of
18 the common law and rules of international comity
19 in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
20
21 In the Shaw case the high Court of Australia stated;
22 42. Jason Shaw, the applicant, migrated to Australia with his parents in 1974. He was then
23 two years of age and a citizen of the United Kingdom. Along with his parents, he was
24 granted a permanent entry permit. Under reg 4 of the Migration Reform (Transitional
25 Provisions) Regulations (Cth), after 1 September 1994 the permanent entry permit held by
26 the applicant continued in effect as a transitional (permanent) visa that permitted the
27 applicant to remain in Australia indefinitely. He has never left Australia since arriving in
28 1974. However, he has never become an Australian citizen.
29 Again;
30 However, he has never become an Australian citizen.
31
32 The judges simply seemed not to realize that they were talking about “citizenship” involving
33 political rights and not at all being about nationality.
34 Mr. SYMON.-
35 I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the
36 Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
37 and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
38 question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
39 Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
40 diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
41 willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
42 not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a
43 leading inducement for joining the Union.
44 Therefore, Mr Shaw was an “Australian citizen” the moment he entered the Commonwealth of
45 Australia and began to reside in a State by obtaining State citizenship! He remained for all
46 purposes a “subject of the Queen” and as the Commonwealth of Australia is a limited

17-5-2025 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 POLITICAL UNION and not a nation in its own rights one cannot have a nationality of being
2 an Australian (as incorrectly referred to being Australian citizenship”) as no such nation exist!
3 To hold that the Commonwealth of Australia is an independent “nation” would mean to claim
4 that the States no longer exist as such. The federation then was a confederation!
5
6 For the extensive set out above, it is clear that Jason Shaw was an Australian citizen from the
7 moment he came to reside in a State in the Commonwealth of Australia.
8 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
9 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
10 And
11 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
12 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
13 The term “citizenship” was not at all associated with “nationality” but rather covered any
14 “subject of the Queen” residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent
15 Australia.
16
17 The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”,
18 “Commonwealth citizens”, “federal citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used ongoing
19 by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to
20 “nationality” but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the
21 Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that
22 the term “Australian citizenship” cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be
23 an “Australian nationality” merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a
24 declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section
25 128 of the Constitution.
26
27 13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
28 13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
29 25-03-1897 Re; Australian citizens
30 Re; dual citizenship
31 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
32 29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
33 30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
34 Re; dual citizenship
35 31-03-1891 Re; Australian citizen
36 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
37 Re; dual citizenship
38 12-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
39 14-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
40 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
41 15-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
42 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
43 Re; dual citizenship
44 17-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
45 24-01-1898 Re; Australian citizen
46 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
47 Re; Commonwealth citizens
48 04-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
49 08-02-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
50 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
51 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
52 Re; federal citizenship
17-5-2025 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 Re; dual citizenship

2 15-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
3 23-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
4 24-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
5 01-03-1898 Re; Australian citizens
6 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
7 02-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
8 Re; federal citizenship
9 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
10 Re; dual citizenship
11 03-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
12 Re; federal citizenship
13 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
14 04-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
15 10-03-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
16
17 Such as Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
18 Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a case
19 which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony from
20 acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under adverse
21 conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that state. The
22 state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or anything else-and I
23 am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the particular administration of
24 its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the exercise of its power and the
25 administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there is to be a clause introduced, to have
26 the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one modification, omitting the words-"and all
27 other persons owing allegiance to the Queen." That would re-open the whole question as to
28 whether an alien, not admitted to the citizenship here-a person who, under the provisions
29 with regard to immigration, is prohibited from entering our territory, or is only allowed to
30 enter it under certain conditions-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a
31 citizen of the Commonwealth. Those words, it seems to me, should come out, and we should
32 confine the operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights of citizenship to the citizens
33 of the Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendment suggested
34 by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.
35 And
36 Mr. KINGSTON.-I say we are creating a Commonwealth in which I hope there will be
37 a federal citizenship, and I shall be glad indeed to see the powers of the Federal
38 Parliament enlarged to enable that body to legislate, not only with reference to
39 naturalization and aliens, but also with reference to the rights and privileges of federal
40 citizenship.
41 An HONORABLE: MEMBER.-What is the meaning of citizenship?
42 Mr. KINGSTON.-It is not defined here, but it ought to be defined in the Constitution, or
43 else we ought to give power to the Federal Parliament to define it. And, after having
44 defined what shall constitute Australian citizenship for the purposes of the
45 Commonwealth, we ought to carefully prevent any state legislating in such a way as to
46 deprive any citizen of the Commonwealth of any privileges which citizenship of the
47 Commonwealth confers within its borders. I have the honour to come from a state which
48 has already adopted a system of absentee taxation, but I do not hesitate to say, speaking on
49 my own individual account, that I think the continuance of that system, applied to citizens
17-5-2025 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 of the Commonwealth resident in other states of the Commonwealth, would be a great

2 mistake and an unfederal act.
3 Mr. HIGGINS.-If a rich South Australian went to live in Tasmania, on account of the
4 cool climate, would you allow the imposition of the absentee tax on him?
5 Mr. KINGSTON.-I do not think it ought to be imposed on him.
6 And
7 An HONORABLE MEMBER.-How would that affect a tax on absentees?
8 Mr. WISE.-It would give full power to impose a tax on absentees outside the
9 Commonwealth, but not within it. There [start page 675] should be no absentees within the
10 Commonwealth after federation. I do not see, how, after federation, a man can be regarded
11 as an absentee at Sydney when he lives in Melbourne. If we are to have federation, the idea
12 that when a man moves from one part of the Commonwealth into another he becomes an
13 absentee, or ceases to be an Australian, is one that must vanish, and we ought, as far as our
14 Constitution will permit us, to do everything to make it vanish quickly. It is a survival of
15 the old idea that there is a distinctive citizenship in a Victorian, and a distinctive
16 citizenship in a New South Wales man. That is the idea which I am endeavouring to
17 destroy by supporting the amendment of Tasmania, that Australian citizenship, and that
18 alone, shall be recognised in every part of the Federation. The way to secure that is to
19 provide in the clearest terms, as Tasmania suggests, that no local Parliament can have any
20 authority to, in any way, abridge the citizenship of an Australian.
21 Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I really think that the constant attempts which are being
22 made to interfere with the rights of the states, in matters which are left to them expressly, is
23 becoming quite alarming. There are a number of general words already in this Constitution
24 which, I fear, may be used so as to almost destroy the independent powers of legislation of
25 the states, with reference to every conceivable subject that they have left to them.
26
27 For the above, and what already has been placed before on file in previous proceedings the issue
28 therefore is that if the Commonwealth of Australia holds that “Australian citizenship” purports
29 some kind of Australian nationality then this is ULTRA VIRES, as no such constitutional
30 powers were granted by the Imperial parliament and neither by any Section 128 referendum.
31 Section 51(xix) only provides for naturalization of “aliens” to be made “British nationals”.
32 The problem with this is that if the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 purports to be “Australian
33 nationality” then this likewise is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.
34 If therefore the Constitution of the State of Victoria relies upon the Australian Citizenship Act
35 1948 as to provide State “franchise” then this is also ULTRA VIRES, as an the State cannot rely
36 upon an unconstitutional enactment.
37
38 If the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is purporting to grant “citizenship” as to refer to political
39 rights then that too would be unconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES.
40
41 If the “AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP” referred to in the “Australian Citizenship Act 1948”
42 in fact is and remains to mean that a person is naturalized to be a British national, then in any
43 case it is ULTRA VIRES where it purports to define/declare the nationality of any person born
44 within the States, as any subject born within the realm of the King (Queen) is automatically a
45 national and so a subject of the British Crown. Any reliance by the State Constitution to allow
46 for franchise based upon a unconstitutional provision in that regard also remains ULTRA
47 VIRES.
17-5-2025 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 It ought to be kept in mind that in 1948 most likely no one really has a slightest understanding
3 and perception as to what was constitutionally appropriate. Whatever was enacted at the time by
4 ill conceived perceptions cannot make it lawful. It remains ULTRA VIRES for so far it is
5 beyond constitutional powers or exceeding constitutional powers.
6
7 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could put a
8 disability to any “alien” upon naturalization to obtain “citizenship”, this by legislation any race is
9 subjected to provided within subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution or otherwise being limited,
10 such as that a person naturalized cannot obtain citizenship within, say, 2 years of naturalization,
11 then a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” cannot be granted to anyone. For example, since
12 the 1967 referendum that provides for Aboriginals to be dealt with under the “race” provisions of
13 Section 51(xxvi) constitutionally not a single Aboriginal can have citizenship involving franchise
14 as they are constitutionally barred once the Commonwealth of Australia enacted legislation
15 within its race constitutional powers.
16 Likewise, while the race powers did not give the Commonwealth of Australia any powers to
17 legislate against the “general community” the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia
18 nevertheless did so and so with the Racial Discrimination Act, by this in effect it also robbed
19 each and every citizen of their right to have franchise and indeed be a Member of Parliament!
20
21 Because “Australian citizenship”, albeit wrongly, has been the core requirement of numerous
22 positions, such as to be a judicial officer, to be a police officer, to be a Member of Parliament,
23 etc, it is having horrific consequences that follows from what currently is so wrongly applied.
24 Still, the rule of law, so constitutional law, must be applied in a proper manner, and not some
25 Banana Republic kind of system.
26
27 The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 also relies upon the unconstitutional declaration/
28 definition of “Australian citizenship” as to provide for “franchise” where in fact “franchise in the
29 Commonwealth of Australia is obtained only by having obtained State franchise through “State
30 citizenship”.
31 What is missing is the States legislation to provide for State citizenship and by this for
32 “franchise”!
33 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
34 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
35 And
36 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
37 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
38 Dual citizenship is not a dual nationality this as the Framers of the Constitution made clear;
39
40 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
41 Mr. SYMON.-
42 Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in
43 each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are
44 citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be
45 the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and
46 myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
47 Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
48 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
49 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
50 And
51 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
52 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

17-5-2025 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 As was also placed before the Magistrates Court of Victoria the evidence in the ADDRESS TO
2 THE COURT that the Attorney-General in November 2002 advised me that the State of
3 Victoria has no legislation to provide State citizenship!
4 Mr. SYMON.-
5 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
6 want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
7 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship.
8 And
9 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
10 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
11 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
12 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
13 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
14 and so on.
15
16
17 Therefore, regardless if the Commonwealth of Australia purports to call “nationality” citizenship
18 it still does not encompass a right to declare/define “CITIZENSHIP” that includes state
19 citizenship and State franchise.
20 Section 41 of the Constitution is very clear that the right to vote, and it is a right not an
21 obligation, is based upon being a State lector. If therefore, the state or States do not have any
22 State citizenship, then there neither can be a State franchise right, and so section 41 of the
23 Constitution does not come in play either.
24
25 It might be clear that the magistrate on 4-12-2002 upon submission of the Commonwealth
26 Director of Public Prosecutions held it better that these matters be determined by the High Court
27 of Australia before any further proceedings were to be dealt with, if at all.
28 As the onus of proving jurisdiction was upon the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecution
29 then it had the obligation to have a ruling by the High Court of Australia upon these matters.
30 The fact that it failed to pursue the matters before the High Court of Australia in my view
31 was tantamount to abandoning its prosecution against me.
32 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
33 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
34 And
35 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
36 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
37 As already earlier stated above;
38 Mr. BARTON.-
39 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
40 regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
41 Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
42 elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it.
43 And
44 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the
45 actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
46 protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
47 recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
48 among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
49 1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
50 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
51 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
17-5-2025 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 And
2 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
3 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
4 The issue of “disability” referred to by the Framers of the Constitution dealing with legislation
5 enacted within Subsection 51(xxvi) is a clear example where unless one is a constitutionalist
6 having extensively researched it all one simply would overlook the relevance of such comments
7 and not being aware that any legislation enacted within the constitutional powers of subsection
8 51(xxvi) as to “race’ automatically disqualifies any person of such a race of “citizenship” and so
9 “franchise”, both State and Federal.
10
11 Mr. BARTON.-But if he is under any disability under any regulation of the [start
12 page 1787] Commonwealth he would cease to be a citizen, however slight that
13 disability might be. I doubt whether the honorable member intends that. There is
14 power by law to regulate the people of any race requiring special laws. There may be some
15 purely regulative law passed, not imposing any special restriction on any person of that
16 kind who may be a subject of the Queen. That regulation, if it were of the mildest
17 character, under this definition, would deprive him of his rights.
18 Dr. QUICK.-The regulation would have to specify the ground of disability.
19 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but my honorable friend says not under any disability imposed by
20 the Parliament. Would not the difficulty be that if he were under any slight disability for
21 regulative purposes, all his rights of citizenship under the Commonwealth would be lost?
22
23 It is therefore very clear that;
24 That regulation, if it were of the mildest character, under this definition, would
25 deprive him of his rights.
26 And hence albeit it was held;
27
28 Hansard 3-4-1891
29 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think there is any inconsistency. Each state is
30 allowed to prescribe who are to be its electors-it may say anything it pleases about that. I
31 do not think that an electoral law saying that only British subjects shall vote can be said to
32 be a special law applicable to the affairs of the people of any race for whom it is thought
33 necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community. I think that
34 would be rather a far-fetched construction of the provision.
35 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
36 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
37 And
38 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
39 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
40 QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
41 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
42 Attorney General 19-11-2002
43 Victoria
44 Fax 9651 0577 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
45 URGENT
46 Sir/Madam
47 Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have
48 as to be able to obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it
49 was stated;
50

17-5-2025 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 “As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth,

2 not the States. You indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you
3 are an Australian citizen.”
4
5 This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil
6 Branch of the Department of Justice.
7
8 Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of
9 the High Court of Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isn’t in the
10 Constitution, then the Commonwealth had no legislative powers.
11
12 RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this
13 is clearly unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must
14 deal with State Citizenship!
15
16 Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of
17 Victoria to the Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution,
18 I view, there never was and still is no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to
19 determine State or any other citizenship!
20
21 At most, the Commonwealth, could determine “citizenship” as the local law for the Act and
22 Northern Territory through the parliaments governing those Territories (being Quasi States) as
23 they are not limited to constitutional provisions, however there never was any Constitutional
24 powers for the Commonwealth to grant citizenship to any resident of a State, neither determine
25 citizenship of a citizen of a State!
26
27 If your Department nevertheless maintains that the Commonwealth has the legislative powers to
28 determine citizenship of residents of the State of Victoria then please do set out in which
29 Constitutional manner the Commonwealth had this power from on set, if any, and/or how it
30 obtained this legislative power since the formation of the Commonwealth!
31
32 If anything, the Department of justice ought to be well aware that unless it is done lawfully it is
33 ULTRA VIRES!
34 END QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
35
36 No further reply was received by me upon this.
37
38 What was shown was that the Victorian government also had seemingly gone along to confuse Australian citizenship with state citizenship! And
39 that is the real problem. Somehow everyone, other then me, seems to have lost reality as to what is applicable.

40 Likewise, other States seemed to have gone along, despite constitutionally the purported
41 “Australian citizenship” could never substitute the constitutional powers of the states to
42 legislate for State citizenship. No State citizenship then no Commonwealth citizenship and so no
43 electoral rights either! Yet, even this basic issue still seems to remain unresolved! Still, Section
44 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 cannot be enforced unless the CDPP can show to
45 the Court that somehow I did obtain “State citizenship” (political rights) and so invoked Section
46 41 of the Constitution to obtain electoral rights in “Commonwealth citizenship”.
47
48 The problem we now are facing also is that the, so to say, con-job 1967 referendum was to
49 purport to give Aboriginals equality in voting. This, even so Aboriginals already voted in the
50 first federal election, but were since then unconstitutionally denied to do so. Amending Section
51 51(xxvi) to allow the Commonwealth to legislate in regard of Aboriginals, had a far wider
52 implication then was considered by the electors. Not only did all Aboriginals by this
53 “disability” loose their electoral rights, no longer being a “citizen” but also the Commonwealth
54 then passed the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which was against the general community.

17-5-2025 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 Hereby all persons of the General Community lost their citizenship likewise, albeit
2 unconstitutionally.
3
4 Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
5 The PRESIDENT took the chair at half-past ten o'clock a.m.
6 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA BILL.
7 The Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole for the further consideration
8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Bill.
9 Discussion (adjourned from the previous day) was resumed on sub-section (1) of clause
10 53 (Exclusive powers of the Parliament), which was as follows:-
11 The affairs of the people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make
12 special laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not
13 extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal native race in any
14 state.
15 Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I have always been under the impression that this clause
16 embodied, certainly, one of the most valuable powers to be conferred upon the Federal
17 Parliament, and have indicated that view during my federation campaign as a strong
18 argument in favour of federation, inasmuch as this power gives the Federal Parliament
19 control over the immigration of aliens. But the discussion which has taken place upon
20 the matter shows the importance of debate. I think that no time has been wasted in the
21 discussion of sub-section (1), which is worthy of full ventilation. I would like to bring even
22 more closely under the notice of the Drafting Committee the real import and significance of
23 the provision. My honorable friends in the representation of Victoria yesterday drew
24 attention to a point of considerable importance as to the possible effect of this sub-section
25 in preventing the local Legislatures from dealing with the alien question up to a certain
26 point. There can be no doubt as to the desirability of conferring unlimited powers on the
27 Federal Parliament to prevent the introduction of foreign coloured races. It may be
28 thought that that power is conferred on the Federal Parliament under other clauses in the
29 Constitution. This sub-section, as I understand it, is restricted in its operation to people of
30 certain races when they are within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. I would like to
31 suggest whether it is wise to withdraw all power and jurisdiction from the Federal
32 Legislature upon such people within certain limits. Sir John Forrest, yesterday, touched
33 upon the fringe of the subject I am discussing when he mentioned that there are certain
34 laws in Western Australia which prevent certain coloured races from having miners' rights,
35 or from going on the gold-fields, or holding hawkers' licences.
36 Mr. PEACOCK.-There is a similar provision in our Mines Act.
37 Dr. QUICK.-And in the Victorian Mines Act there is power to insert in the covenants of a
38 mining lease a provision that the employment of Chinese labour shall not be permitted to
39 be a compliance with the labour covenants of the mining law. That is, of course, an
40 important power to be held by any Parliament, and it is a power which is restricted within
41 the territorial limits. It is not proposed in this Constitution to take away from the state
42 Legislatures jurisdiction over mines and minerals. I would, therefore, like the Drafting
43 Committee to consider whether this sub-section, as it stands at present, will not prevent the
44 Parliament of Western Australia from abstaining from granting miners' rights to
45 coloured aliens, and prevent the Parliament of Victoria from continuing to enforce the

17-5-2025 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 proviso that the employment of Chinese labour shall not be a compliance with the labour
2 covenants of the mining law?
3 Mr. DEAKIN.-Read clause 110 in connexion with that.
4 Mr. BARTON.-That applies rather to the administration of the laws, I think.
5 [start page 246]
6 Dr. QUICK.-The clause alluded to by Mr. Deakin says-
7 A state shall not make or enforce any law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens
8 of other states of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deny to any person within its
9 jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
10 It may be that that clause supports the view that the state would not be able to impose
11 disabilities upon coloured aliens.
12 And
13 Mr. KINGSTON.-Clause 100 has some reference to the matter, but a more important
14 point was the one taken by Mr. Clark, then Attorney-General of Tasmania, and concurred
15 in by Sir Samuel Griffith at the Convention in 1891. Mr. Clark called special attention to
16 the use of the expression-"the people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed
17 necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community" and he asked-
18 "By whom is it to be deemed necessary?" The answer, of course, is-"By the Federal
19 Parliament." Mr. Clark asked-"Do we know when the Federal Parliament will deem it
20 necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community?" And the answer
21 is-"Not until the Federal Parliament exercise that power."
22 Again;
23 -"the people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws
24 not applicable to the general community"
25 What we now have is that judges are adjudication upon LEGAL FICTION rather then upon
26 constitutional reality. As I view it they have been “brainwashed” during legal studies and
27 otherwise to accept the term “Australian citizenship” being Australian nationality and
28 determining the right of franchise by this even this clearly is unconstitutional.
29
30 A clear example of judges adjudicating upon a LEGAL FICTION is in the High Court of
31 Australia case of Mr. John Murray Abbott deemed to have a DEBT TO THE
32 COMMONWEALTH in regard of child support, even so no such constitutional powers in the
33 first place exist for the Commonwealth to turn children into slaves as to make a private debts into
34 some kind of DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH, as I have already canvassed extensively
35 in my already published books.
36 In the Abbott case the High Court of Australia upheld that Mr John Abbott had a DEBT TO
37 THE COMMONWEALTH as claimed by the Child Support Agency throughout previous
38 litigation involving the Magistrates Court of Victoria, the Family Court of Australia and the Full
39 Court of the Family Court of Australia. The irony is that after Mr Abbott lost his High Court case
40 then the Child support Agency refunded the moneys already obtained upon the basis that it found
41 there was after all not DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH at all. As such, each and every
42 Court, including the High Court of Australia had adjudicated upon a LEGAL FICTION that
43 there was a DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH even so there was none.
44
17-5-2025 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 Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

2 The Hon. E. BARTON: If the subclause can be amended in the direction which the hon.
3 and learned member suggests, my objection will have disappeared, and there will be a
4 reasonable consistency in the law. I think the difficulty might be overcome by inserting
5 before the words "parental rights" the word "also," and at the end of the sub-clause the
6 words "in relation thereto."
7 Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[3.51]: Is it worth while to deal with the matter in that
8 way? If you give the federal parliament power in relation to marriage generally and divorce
9 generally, then anything that concerns parental rights and the custody and guardianship of
10 infants is connected with either one or the other. It seems to me that if you intrust the
11 federal authority with the power of dealing with marriage and divorce, which involves
12 everything relating to the highest earthly ties-that of marriage-it ought, consequent on that,
13 also to regulate the custody of infants. It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr.
14 Carruthers, seems to think is in the minds of many who see some objection to this-
15 that it might empower the federal authority to interfere with domestic relations in
16 some mysterious manner so as to reduce children to a position of slavery. This is a
17 control that seems to me to be consequent upon marriage, and which might come into
18 operation, perhaps, in relation to all matters of divorce; but it is not confined to matters of
19 divorce, and might depend simply on marriage when the question of divorce does not arise.
20 It will, perhaps, be better to leave the sub-clause as it is and consider the matter further
21 later on.
22 Again;
23 It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seems to think is in the
24 minds of many who see some objection to this-that it might empower the federal
25 authority to interfere with domestic relations in some mysterious manner so as to
26 reduce children to a position of slavery.
27
28 Yet, the Commonwealth of Australia somehow has turned a “private debt” into a FICTITIOUS
29 “DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH” even so this in effect turn children into chattels of the
30 Commonwealth of Australia where no such constitutional powers exist.
31 And, by the child support Agency averting any evidence to prove there is actually a debt at all
32 but judicial decisions are made upon the FICTIONAL debt alleged by the Child Support
33 Agency, the end result is that people innocent of any breach of law are still ending up having a
34 judgment against them because judges simply fail to have appropriate understanding of what is
35 constitutionally and/or further legally applicable.
36 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
37 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
38
39 Again:
40
41 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
42 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
43 QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
44 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
45 Attorney General 19-11-2002
46 Victoria
47 Fax 9651 0577 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
48 URGENT
49 Sir/Madam

17-5-2025 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 Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have
2 as to be able to obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it
3 was stated;
4
5 “As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a
6 matter for the Commonwealth, not the States. You
7 indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result
8 of that, you are an Australian citizen.”
9
10 This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil
11 Branch of the Department of Justice.
12
13 Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of
14 the High Court of Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isn’t in the
15 Constitution, then the Commonwealth had no legislative powers.
16
17 RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this
18 is clearly unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must
19 deal with State Citizenship!
20
21 Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of
22 Victoria to the Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution,
23 I view, there never was and still is no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to
24 determine State or any other citizenship!
25
26 At most, the Commonwealth, could determine “citizenship” as the local law for the Act and
27 Northern Territory through the parliaments governing those Territories (being Quasi States) as
28 they are not limited to constitutional provisions, however there never was any Constitutional
29 powers for the Commonwealth to grant citizenship to any resident of a State, neither determine
30 citizenship of a citizen of a State!
31
32 If your Department nevertheless maintains that the Commonwealth has the legislative powers to
33 determine citizenship of residents of the State of Victoria then please do set out in which
34 Constitutional manner the Commonwealth had this power from on set, if any, and/or how it
35 obtained this legislative power since the formation of the Commonwealth!
36
37 If anything, the Department of justice ought to be well aware that unless it is done lawfully it is
38 ULTRA VIRES!
39 END QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
40
41 No further reply was received by me upon this.
42
43 What was shown was that the Victorian government also had seemingly gone along to
44 confuse Australian citizenship with state citizenship! And that is the real problem.
45 Somehow everyone, other then me, seems to have lost reality as to what is applicable.
46 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
47 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
48
49 Without “State citizenship” there can be no “Commonwealth citizenship” and so neither anyone
50 to be voting in state/Territory/Federal political elections! What this shows however is that neither
51 the Commonwealth DPP and/or any or all of the 9 Attorney Generals challenged me at all on any

17-5-2025 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 of these and other constitutional issues and as such deemed to have conceded that I was correct
2 as to what I stated in support of my successful appeals way back on 19 July 2006!
3
4 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
7 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
8 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
9 [start page 2004]
10 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
11 END QUOTE
12
13
14 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
16 Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives
17 within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including
18 the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
19 END QUOTE
20 .
21 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
22 Australasian Convention)
23 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-
24 It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a
25 majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
26 END QUOTE
27 .
28 Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
29 Australasian Convention)
30 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
31 I believe that, with certain alterations in the financial provisions, that Bill is a measure
32 under which the colonies could even now safely federate. Not that I say it is the best Bill
33 that could be framed; but I do believe it is a well-devised and well-drawn Constitution,
34 and a Constitution [start page 11] under which a free people-making such
35 amendments from time to time as necessity will require, and the powers given by the
36 Constitution will allow-might live in perfect freedom and with perfect security.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
40 Convention)
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start
43 page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision
44 the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a
45 declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the
46 Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
47 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
48 END QUOTE
49 .
50 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
51 Convention)
52 QUOTE
53 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
54 mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
55 states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according
56 to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign
57 will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much
58 about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
17-5-2025 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 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
2 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either
3 side to attack each other's laws.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Now we happen to have well allegedly a Minister for Citizenship and an Assistant Minister for
7 Citizenship and neither one would have clue what it is about! Constitutionally with this
8 citizenship nonsense by the High Court of Australia we have constitutionally that is no state,
9 Territorian and Commonwealth citizens at all and so no electors and not a single person therefore
10 can be elected to any Parliament!
11
12 As for the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill terrible decision consider also that the High Court
13 of Australia is part of the constitution and not above it and as such cannot twist and infringe
14 upon the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
15
16 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
17 Australasian Convention)
18 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
19 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a
20 judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as
21 a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts which
22 the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
27 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that
28 people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to
29 day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance
30 into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it
31 must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary
32 that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured.
33 It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse,
34 and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to
35 a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
36 contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the
37 citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
38 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily
39 government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is
40 the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution.
41 There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has
42 sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
43 popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and
44 I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a
45 free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty
46 of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as
47 the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine
48 questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should
49 be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all
50 courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
51 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the
52 will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution
17-5-2025 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 shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court
2 appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a
3 perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It
4 is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the
5 Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
6 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and
7 the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
8 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
9 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
10 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
11 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it
12 gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
13 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such
14 a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
15 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
16 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided
17 for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
23 Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
24 Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole
25 of the expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the
26 services and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred
27 from the States to the Commonwealth.
28 Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
29 Mr. BARTON: Yes.
30 END QUOTE
31 Again:
32 Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
35 Mr. BARTON: Yes.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this
41 Constitution?
42 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could
43 not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
44 [start page 1773]
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Likewise, the so called “not for profit” (non-profit) exemption is unconstitutional this as taxation
48 can only be applied on a sliding scale but not excluding anyone!
49
50 Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
51 Australasian Convention)
52 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-

17-5-2025 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 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the
2 Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be
3 uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
4 END QUOTE

5 .
6 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
7 Australasian Convention)
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
10 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
11 END QUOTE
12 And
13 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
14 Australasian Convention)
15 QUOTE
16 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
17 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
18 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
19 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
20 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
21 END QUOTE

22 .
23 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
24 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
25 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
26 imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
27 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Having a Minister for Finance, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer obviously doesn’t make sense
31 where they simply cannot grasp the true meaning and application of the legal principles
32 embedded in the constitution and continue to conduct matters as I view like zombies!
33
34 64 Ministers of State
35 The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
36 departments of State of the Commonwealth as the
37 Governor-General in Council may establish.
38 Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the
39 Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal
40 Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for
41 the Commonwealth.
42 Ministers to sit in Parliament
43 After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
44 for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a
45 senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
46
47 It must be very clear that there can be no such thing as an outer ministry this because the
48 constitution dictates: “They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council”!
49
50
51 pm.gov.auhttps://www.pm.gov.au › media › ministerial-arrangements-12may25
52 Ministerial arrangements - Prime Minister of Australia
53 8 hours ago ... On Tuesday, 13 May 2025, I intend to recommend to the Governor-General
54 the following makeup of my ministry.
17-5-2025 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
2 https://www.pm.gov.au/media/ministerial-arrangements-12may25
3 QUOTE
4 Ministerial arrangements
5 Media release
6 Monday 12 May 2025
7
8 The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
9 Prime Minister of Australia
10 Listen
11 On Tuesday, 13 May 2025, I intend to recommend to the Governor-General the following
12 makeup of my ministry.
13 Cabinet
14
15 Anthony Albanese MP Prime Minister
16 Richard Marles MP Deputy Prime Minister
17 Minister for Defence
18
19 Senator Penny Wong Minister for Foreign Affairs
20 Dr Jim Chalmers MP Treasurer
21
22 Senator Katy Gallagher Minister for Finance
23 Minister for the Public Service
24 Minister for Women
25 Minister for Government Services
26 Senator Don Farrell Minister for Trade and Tourism
27 Special Minister of State
28
29 Tony Burke MP Minister for Home Affairs
30 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
31 Minister for Cyber Security
32 Minister for the Arts
33 Mark Butler MP Minister for Health and Ageing
34 Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme
35
36 Chris Bowen MP Minister for Climate Change and Energy
37 Catherine King MP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
38
39 Amanda Rishworth MP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
40 Jason Clare MP Minister for Education
41
42 Michelle Rowland MP Attorney-General
43 Tanya Plibersek MP Minister for Social Services
44
45 Julie Collins MP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
46 Clare O’Neil MP Minister for Housing
47 Minister for Homelessness
48 Minister for Cities
49
50 Madeleine King MP Minister for Resources
51 Minister for Northern Australia
52 Senator Murray Watt Minister for the Environment and Water
53
54 Senator Malarndirri McCarthy Minister for Indigenous Australians
55 Anika Wells MP Minister for Communications
56 Minister for Sport
57
58 Pat Conroy MP Minister for Defence Industry
59 Minister for Pacific Island Affairs
60 Dr Anne Aly MP Minister for Small Business
17-5-2025 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 Minister for International Development

2 Minister for Multicultural Affairs
3
4 Senator Tim Ayres Minister for Industry and Innovation
5 Minister for Science
6
7
8 Outer Ministry
9
10 Matt Keogh MP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
11 Minister for Defence Personnel
12 Kristy McBain MP Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories
13 Minister for Emergency Management
14
15 Andrew Giles MP Minister for Skills and Training
16 Senator Jenny McAllister Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme
17
18 Dr Daniel Mulino MP Assistant Treasurer
19 Minister for Financial Services
20 Senator Dr Jess Walsh Minister for Early Childhood Education
21
22 Sam Rae MP Minister for Youth
23 Minister for Aged Care and Seniors
24
25
26 Assistant Ministers
27
28 Patrick Gorman MP Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister
29 Assistant Minister for the Public Service
30 Assistant Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
31 Matt Thistlethwaite MP Assistant Minister for Immigration
32 Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
33
34 Dr Andrew Leigh MP Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury
35 Ged Kearney MP Assistant Minister for Social Services
36 Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence
37
38 Emma McBride MP Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention
39 Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health
40 Senator Anthony Chisholm Assistant Minister for Resources
41 Assistant Minister for Regional Development
42 Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
43
44 Josh Wilson MP Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy
45 Assistant Minister for Emergency Management
46 Julian Hill MP Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs
47 Assistant Minister for International Education
48
49 Rebecca White Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care
50 Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health
51 Assistant Minister for Women
52 Dr Andrew Charlton MP Cabinet Secretary
53 Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy
54
55 Senator Nita Green Assistant Minister for Northern Australia
56 Assistant Minister for Tourism
57 Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs
58 Peter Khalil MP Assistant Minister for Defence
59
60
61 In addition, I intend to appoint the following Special Envoys.
62 Special Envoys
17-5-2025 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
2 Susan Templeman MP Special Envoy for the Arts
3 Luke Gosling OAM MP Special Envoy for Defence, Veterans’ Affairs and Northern Australia
4 Dan Repacholi MP Special Envoy for Men’s Health
5
6 Josh Burns MP Special Envoy for Social Housing and Homelessness
7 Marion Scrymgour MP Special Envoy for Remote Communities
8 Kate Thwaites MP Special Envoy for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience
9 END QUOTE
10
11 When I email to the following email address:
12
13 Service Australian CUSTOMER.COMMENTS <[email protected]>
14
15 Again:
16 [email protected]
17
18 Then I receive the response:
19
20 QUOTE
21 This mailbox is unmonitored
22 Yahoo/Archive
23 [email protected]

24 From:[email protected]

25 To:[email protected]

26 Fri, 16 May at 12:28 am

27 This mailbox is not monitored. To have your enquiry attended to, please send Services Australia a message
28 using the Contact Us facility on the Services Australia website.

29 ********************************************************************** IMPORTANT:
30 This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain information that is confidential,
31 commercially valuable and/or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended
32 recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or
33 taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If
34 you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and
35 hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before
36 printing this e-mail **********************************************************************
37 END QUOTE
38
39 As such, my emails to: [email protected] are railroaded and I
40 suspect likely so of other citizens and this underlines how Service Australia/Centrelink claims
41 not to have received my responses while in fact it use a fraudulent email address to prevent my
42 emails to be received! And yet is has claimed that my Suspended Age pension is because I did
43 not provide information! Within the Disability Discrimination Act (Cth) clearly Service
44 Australia/Centrelink failed to provide a proper working email address. While it may also argue
45 that customer complaints are different then whatever it desires, that is immaterial to the fact that
46 even any complaints made to use the email address provided by Service Australia/Centrelink still
47 will be denied to be accepted by Service Australia/Centrelink.
48 This underlines that no matter how many jobs for the boys/girls may be created when we just as I
49 view it have numskulls in charge then problems will be ongoing!
50
51 There is obviously plenty of other issues I could raise but for the moment it should be very clear
52 that we do not have a proper system in place within the legal principles embedded in the
17-5-2025 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 constitution and not likely will achieve this unless we hold all the wrongdoers personally legally
2 accountable.
3
4 We have “Travelling Pete” Anthony Albanese travelling the world while he in my view is
5 grossly incompetent to properly understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of
6 the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
7 and so his fellow political associates and others likewise.
8
9 The Commonwealth has simply no legislative powers as to climate change nonsense as the
10 Framers of the Constitution specifically excluded it from Commonwealth legislative powers.
11
12 Neither does the Commonwealth have any legislative powers as to Art, etc!
13
14 So much more that is done wrongly and better attend to the issues at hand as legal accountability
15 will be pursued! I am not a person who takes it lightly for anyone to deprive me of my
16 constitutional rights and so also of my Age Pension, and neither will afterwards accept any
17 excuses of a person not having known what was constitutionally applicable, because those who
18 are paid to do a job cannot claim ignorance!
19
20
21 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
22
23 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
24 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

25 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

26 (Our name is our motto!)

17-5-2025 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