1

Registrar High Court of Australia 17-8-2017
enquiries@hcourt.gov.au

5 Cc: Senator George Brandis Attorney-General senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir/Madam,
I understand that currently before the High Court of Australia is the matter
Commonwealth v Barnaby Joyce and Ord, in relation to qualifications within s44 of the
10 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
On 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria (by consent) in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
ordered that the S78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS be dealt with by the
High Court of Australia. This notice included:
QUOTE
15 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

1. The Defendant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA gives notice that the
proceedings involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
within the meaning of section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903.
20 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
37. That I seek this Court to adjourn these proceedings and to place before the HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA a CASE STATED as to have the High Court of Australia to first determine the following
25 matters;

(i) Can a person obtain “Australian citizenship” without first obtaining “State citizenship” (Quasi
States being Territories included)? If so, then by which constitutional valid manner?

30 (ii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to define “citizenship”? If so;
(a) under which provision? And
(b) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(c) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?

35 (iii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to declare and/or grant citizenship? If so,
(d) under which provision? And
(e) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(f) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?

40 (iv) Does the Commonwealth have the constitutional powers to determine the rights of a resident in a
State to obtain citizenship of such State? If so, by which constitutional powers?
END QUOTE

I am aware of the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill judgment but as this was to some extent
45 outside the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia anyone can disregard this.

p1 1-8-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
2
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
5 against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE

10 The Framers of the Constitution made clear:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
15 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
20 the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
And
25 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
30 And
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler
than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present
35 when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position
we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal
citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a
40 Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing unconstitutional,
nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal citizenship.
END QUOTE
And
45 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
50 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE
And
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
55 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution.
END QUOTE
60
p2 1-8-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
3
It therefore was beyond the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia to make any ruling
violating the true meaning and application of the constitution. In my view it was nothing less
than TREASON by the High Court of Australia to pretend otherwise then what is
constitutionally applicable.
5
The Commonwealth (for the AEC) was being the prosecutor have pursued the s78B NOTICE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS at that time before the Melbourne Registry of the High
Court of Australia. In my view it was CONTEMPT OF COURT if it failed to do so. I for one
never did receive any notification from the High Court of Australia about the s78B NOTICE OF
10 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS to be listed for hearing before the Court. Considering this is
nearly 15 years ago it is obvious that the Commonwealth couldn’t bother to comply with the 4
December 2002 court orders it consented to. In my view, the High Court of Australia cannot
proceed with the hearing of the matter of (as I understand it to be) Commonwealth v Barnaby
Joyce and Ors where it may have sought to circumvent the High Court of Australia making any
15 decision in regard of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS as this might be
adverse to the Commonwealth and now would totally defeat its case in Commonwealth v
Barnaby Joyce and Ors.
In my view the High Court of Australia therefore, considering there was a 4 December 2002
order by consent for the High Court of Australia to determine matters of the s78B NOTICE OF
20 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS before it embarks upon the matter of Commonwealth v
Barnaby Joyce and Ors. This also, that were the High Court of Australia find that the
constitution doesn’t permit the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship and that
Australians are and remain to be ‘British subjects’ then it has to overturn the Sue v Hill decision
also and dismiss the Commonwealth v Barnaby Joyce and Ors matter. I anticipate that the High
25 Court of Australia will now list matters in its proper order and instruct the Commonwealth to file
and serve its documents including a copy of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS in the Melbourne Registry of the High Court of Australia and matter will proceed
with the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS so to say being the first cab of
the rank to be heard and determined. It may also be noted that New Zealand is within our
30 constitution regarded as a ‘state’ regardless it may never actually have joined as such.
I have published a copy of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS on my
blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.

":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
35 makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA279)

"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
40 "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte
Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
45 QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation

1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
50 enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

p3 1-8-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
4
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
5 someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE

Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the
10 Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
15 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

20 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
(Our name is our motto!)

p4 1-8-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati