ISSUE: 20170814 - Re Citizenship -The Barnaby (backdown) Joyce, etc & the constitution

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

Ok, personally I would prefer Barnaby (backdown) Joyce to be kicked out of the Parliament
considering his backdown on the Telstra issue. I view he deceived the constituents to vote for
him upon a lie he would oppose the sale of Telstra. I view the sale of Telstra was and remains
unconstitutional, and there is a lot more to it but not now the time to set it out again.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I cannot afford to have my personal views interfering with what is
constitutionally appropriate.
As I stated in 20170727-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re
DUAL CITIZENSHIP, etc & the constitution
QUOTE
ISSUE: 20170727 - Re DUAL CITIZENSHIP, etc & the constitution

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

constitution. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I wrote and published in 2003 a book about
CITIZENSHIP (INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about
Australians unduly harmed. (ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-
0) and filed 6 copies with the High Court of Australia. I filed a Section 75(v) application but the
court on 4 occasions refused to accept it for filing. Only to then ask lawyers to bring on a case as
to CITIZENSHIP. After all, ordinary lawyers and politicians do not have a clue what
CITIZENSHIP is about. On 19 July 2006 in 2 appeals (County Court of Victoria, Case numbers
T01567737 & Q10897630) I raised then again the issue on CITIZENSHIP, and not one the
Attorney-Generals challenged it, and I succeeded in my appeals. The whole CITIZENSHIP issue
could have been put to rest if the HCA had not thwarted my applications way back in 2003. Then
again it didn't want to be embarrassed that it too was wrong about what CITIZENSHIP actually
in constitutional terms stands for. It is not the constitution that should be blamed but rather the
blatant ignorance by the federal government and the courts not to ensure that the true meaning
and application of the constitution and so CITIZENSHIP is pursued. As with the Bourke Street
Mall 20 January 2017 killings I warned the federal and State Politicians about it on 15 July 2016
and repeated the same even on 21 December 2016 (copies are now before the coroner The
coroner has acknowledged my submission) but the politicians that is each and every one couldn't
care less! Afterwards of the killing they pretend to care.
Yet again persons have lost their seats in the Federal Parliament because of the failure of having
a proper system in place to deal with what CITIZENSHIP in the constitution really stands for,
and to ensure that anyone who naturalised is given the option at that time to renounce any other
citizenship that exist at that time. Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
doesnt and never has provided the Commonwealth of Australia with the right to grand
citizenship nor is it entitled to have any Commonwealth electoral roll and for that as I
successfully proved in court also it has no constitutional powers to compulsory requires anyone
to vote. This nonsense of citizenship being a nationality must stop.
To my knowledge many others with their legal teams (including the now Senator Hinch) failed
against opposing compulsory voting where I representing myself succeeded, because I
researched what the constitutional meaning of citizenship stands for. I view it is not just unfair
p1 14-8-2017 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
but an utter disgrace for those who end up harmed that the Federal Government still has no
system in place to prevent such debacles to eventuate. Its highly paid barristers couldnt defeat
me in litigation but still there is a blatant ignorance. Wake up and understand that this is a self-
inflicted harm and scoring once own goal. Now another 3 persons have ended up in problems
and now the government may be in dire problems if more come out and so stop the nonsense of
ignorance and make sure the issues are appropriately addressed.
The Federal Government can engage me to once and for all address relevant matters or continue
to score in its own goal, and perhaps even lose Government in the process. Your call!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE
And in 20170715-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re ,
Citizenship, nationality, etc & the constitution
QUOTE
ISSUE: 20170715 - Re Citizenship, nationality, etc & the constitution

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

constitution. As I understand it in IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F.C. 88/018 Senator
Wood was ousted as a senator and so later Heather Hill by the High court of Australia albeit in
my view considering the legal principles embedded in the constitution and so also s44 of the
constitution both were legitimately Senators. Likewise so with Senator Rodney Culleton. As for
Senator Ludlam this is a matter I have not as yet been able to ascertain as what is critical is if
New Zealand still is under a British Constitution and what its constitution is about.
QUOTE New Zealand Constitution - NZ Parliament https://www.parliament.nz/.../en-
nz/.../502fa2135dd16543ca15974a028ad70161b80aba Oct 3, 2005 - The sources of New
Zealand's constitution are very diverse and, ... New Zealand does not have a written
constitution which has the status of. END QUOTE
It should be understood that s44 was designed to bar persons not being British subjects to be able
to sit in the Parliament. It did not and never was intended to bar anyone who was a British
Subject to serve in the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament.
The question therefore is if New Zealanders are under British law and as such remain to be
British subjects or not. If New Zealanders remain to be British subjects as Australians
constitutionally are, then Senator Ludlam was validly elected and was entitled to hold a seat in
the Parliament. Our problem is that the High Court of Australia, so to say has ruled in violation
of our constitution and pretend a different kind of application. This PRESS RELEASE cannot
contain the total set out about matters, safe to say that High Court of Australia in February and
March 2003 refused to accept my s75(V) application about dealing with citizenship but
subsequently in 2 appeals I succeeded in court on it. As such I have a court decision in my
favour, and it may be stated that I had served upon all Attorney-Generals a S78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and none of them challenged my written submissions in the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT about the issue of citizenship or for that any other constitutional
issues I raised. It is a legal principle that any judicial decision that is in violation of the
constitution is null and void. As such I view this applies to the Wood, Hill, Culleton cases and it
would better and indeed more desirable that Mr Ludlam pursues this matter before the High
Court of Australia as a constitutional issues.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. HIGGINS: QUOTE I think it is advisable that
private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided
out of their own pockets. END QUOTE
Obviously he would need to follow the line I have all along pursued and get the Court to accept
that it incorrectly interpreted the constitution in the past. We may then get rid of the madness of
the High Court of Australia perverting the true meaning and application of the constitution, and
p2 14-8-2017 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
in future those validly elected can be assured they can remain in the parliament and not ousted by
some legal unconstitutional nonsense. It is not the constitution that is the problem but I view the
lack of the judges to understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the
constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE
We then also have to consider:

QUOTE
6 Definitions
The Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia
as established under this Act.
The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales,
New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia,
and South Australia, including the northern territory of South
Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth,
and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or
established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts
of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.
Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the
Commonwealth at its establishment.
END QUOTE

In 20170722-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Dr John Cameron I wrote (parftly reproduced:

QUOTE
Dr John Cameron 22-7-2017
Francis Burt Chambers.
Street Address, Level 19, Allendale Square,
77 St George's Terrace, Perth

Cc: Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP Prime Minister Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au

Mr George Brandis MP Attorney-General senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Senator Parry, President of the Senate senator.parry@aph.gov.au

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir,

I understand from media articles that you had checked the status of Senator Hinch and
Senator Ludlan as to dual citizenship. Allegedly you had expected Senator Hinch not to have
removed his NZ citizenship but found he had but not Senator Ludlam. It appears you provided a
courtesy notification to Senator Scott Ludlam prior to notifying Senator Scott Ludlam about his
New Zealand citizenship.

Not to overlook that New Zealand under Defenitions is a state of the Commonwealth
of Australia, regardless that New Zealand has not joined the federation.

https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/barrister-who-exposed-scott-ludlam-says-he-was-
not-politically-motivated-ng-b88538025z
p3 14-8-2017 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
Barrister who exposed Scott Ludlam says he was not politically motivated
QUOTE

I sent the certificate to the clerk of the Senate, however out of a courtesy a few days ago I
provided Senator Ludlam with a copy of the certificate. This is not driven by political
ideology.
END QUOTE
As I had no formal education in the English language my self-professed Crummy English has to
do, then again many lawyers would not even have a clue about what I write and one may then
ask, what was their legal studies and their practice about if they cannot even understand/
comprehend the basic legal principles of our constitution!
As a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST (and having defeated the Commonwealth on 19 July
2006 in 2 appeals that compulsory voting is unconstitutional) and being also a retired
Professional Advocate who also represented lawyers in court, even so I am not a lawyer let alone
a legal practitioner, I welcome anyone to pursue the true meaning and application of the
constitution. My blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikatui may indicate more than 1200
documents.
Before going into details about Senator Scott Ludlam I will give you an example of what I am
about, and exposing how lawyers (including barristers and judges) often get it so wrong.
I below will refer to your reported statement also and the example about Mr Carl Williams if you
consider it appropriately may indicate that you in regard of Senator Scott Ludlam may have acted
honorably but was it sufficient in law?
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking
consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient
in law.
END QUOTE
To be honest, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST what you consider prove of dual citizenship may
not at all be the so called hanging offence to oust Senator Scott Ludlam from the Senate. There is
a lot more to it and again on 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 &
Q10897630 when I successfully appealed both appeals (unchallenged by any of the Attorney-
Generals who were all served with an s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS) I
also referred on constitutional grounds as to citizenship and what it stands for, etc.
In constitutional terms (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK))
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
p4 14-8-2017 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
 place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.

END QUOTE

Hence, I would have expected that as a barrister you would have provided relevant information
that New Zealand citizenship is a nationality and not merely a political right being entitled to
vote, etc.
END QUOTE

I AM WELL AWARE MOST POLITICIANS MAYPREFER TO IGNORE MY

WRITINGS AS IT MAY NOT SUIT THEM AT THE TIME, BUT IT NOW SHOWS SO
TO SAY HEADS ARE ROLLING BECAUSE OF THIS, as was with my warnings of 15 July
2017 and 21 December 2016 about BOURKE STREET MALL dangers and the need for
bollards, etc. Politicians then ignored me also both on state and federal level and 6 people are
now in their graves and more than 2 dozen injured because of this blatant ignorance, since the 20
January 2017 killings, which correspondences are now before the Coroners Court.
In my view, the first thing that is needed is to revert back to calling it nationality as the term
citizenship is confusing and unconstitutional. I did set this out in my book extensively and so
no need to repeat the same.
Further, if New Zealand laws were to provide automatically citizenship upon descendants then
I view this has no impact whatsoever upon s44 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) unless Mr Barnaby (backdown) Joyce himself claimed this nationality rights
and exercised this. One cannot have that some foreign jurisdiction by merely legislating could
somehow undermine the constitutional rights of not just Mr Barnaby (backdown) Joyce but
anyone else for that matter. Fancy New Zealand were to enact that any Australian
Parliamentarian upon taking up a seat in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
would be automatically be deemed a citizen of New Zealand! As a matter of fact if we were to
rely upon such legislation then not a single parliamentarian currently holds validly a seat in the
parliament regardless if New Zealand may not provide for such legislation in view that the
following already applies:
QUOTE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
President S. R Nathan, Singapore 24-11-2005
feedback_unit@mcys.gov.sg

Cc;Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister singov_webmaster@mica.gov.sg

Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general Democratic party. singov_webmaster@mica.gov.sg
Mr Lex Lasry QC, Chairman of Victoria Criminal Bar Association Lex.lasry@vicbar.com.au
Nigel Moore High commissioner to Singapore
Rudd, Mr Kevin, Member for Griffith Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
Robert Hull Attorney-General info@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr John Howard David.Hawker.MP@aph.gov.au Mark Vaile (Nationals) mark.vaile.mp@aph.gov.au
Mr Kim Beezley, Leader of Her Majesty (Federal) Opposition, Kim.Beazley.MP@aph.gov.au
Rt Hon Malcolm Fraser Malcolm.Fraser@aph.gov.au Mr Michael Jefferey, governor-general@gg.gov.au
Mirko Bagaric hoslaw@deakin.edu.au Luke Howie info@homelandsecurity.org.au
p5 14-8-2017 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
 Mr John Stanhope leah.deforest@act.gov.au Solicitor-General of Victoria info@parliament.vic.gov.au
Christoph Pyne C.Pyne.MP@aph.gov.au Mr Bob Brown, Senator (Greens) senator.brown@aph.gov.au
John Cobb John.Cobb.MP@aph.gov.au Senator Lyn Allison (AD) senator.allison@aph.gov.au
The Honourable Clare Martin MLA chiefminister.nt@nt.gov.au
THE HON DR GEOFF I GALLOP BEc MA MPhil DPhil MLA wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au
Premier The Hon. Morris IEMMA, MP thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au
Peter Beattie MP, Premier premiers.master@premiers.qld.gov.au
Premier Mr Paul Lennon judy.jackson@justice.tas.gov.au
Hon MIKE RANN MP ramsay@parliament.sa.gov.au
Terry OGorman Australian Council for Civil Liberties robogor@ozemail.com.au
Mr Peter Webb, secretary-general The Law Council of Australia mail@lawcouncil.asn.au
Mr Richard Faulks, President, Australian Lawyers Alliance enquiries@lawyersalliance.com.au
James McConvill, Lecturer at Deakin University law School, Melbourne james.mcconvill@deakin.edu.au
Mr Lex Lasry QC, Chairman of Victoria Criminal Bar Association Lex.lasry@vicbar.com.au
Aleander Downer (Foreign Affairs & Peter Costello, treasurer, David.Hawker.MP@aph.gov.au
Prof Andrew Fraser, andrew.fraser@mq.edu.au Steven Ciobo Steven.Ciobo.MP@aph.gov.au
Carmen Lawrence Carmen.Lawrence.MP@aph.gov.au Tony Jones lateline@your.abc.net.au,
Chris Ellison Minister of Justice David.Hawker.MP@aph.gov.au
Mr P Ruddock, Attorney General David.Hawker.MP@aph.gov.au
marise@marisepayne.com, P.Georgiou.MP@aph.gov.au, J.Moylan.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator George Brandis, senator.brandis@aph.gov.au Senator Barnaby Joyce senator.joyce@aph.gov.au
Hotham Mission (Asylum Seekers Project) asp4@sub.net.au director@republic.org.au
Salvation Army webmaster@aue.salvationarmy.org
Dr Anne McNevin Australian national Univeristy anne.mcnevin@anu.edu.au
Mr John Von Doussa QC, President, HREOC paffairs@humanrights.gov.au
Mr Vadaketh
Dr Christopher Ward Marcus Einfeld QC
Bill Shorten (Union leader)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

EXTREME URGENT
Re: Constitutional issues, Implied Abolition of Death penalty & Nguyan Tuong Van, etc.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Sir,
It is my view that unlikely the execution of Nguyan Tuong Van has been given proper consideration as to
the implications of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, as set out some of it below. Hence, I urge you
immediate attention to this matter, and so the Government of Singapore.
Nguyan Tuong Van as like any citizen of Singapore by the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of
Singapore has the same rights to obtain the benefits of treaties/laws of other Commonwealth countries, including
the abolition of the death penalty, as is in fact implied to Singapore, just that the Government of Singapore my not
have been aware of this.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such considering the decision
of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908
(Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE
LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003]
EWCA Civ 168
It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(the ECHR) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is. I am really unknown what the background of
Singaporean constitutional law might be, but assuming this is British (constitutional) law also, then the same would
be applicable to Singapore.
Regardless if you initially may not agree with my views, at least have it checked out, as it turns out I am right then
Tuong Van Nguyens life might be saved from the gallows! Surely the life of an Australia is worth it to check it
out?
END QUOTE
p6 14-8-2017 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
And
QUOTE
The very issue is that a treaty was made at the time for the good of Singapore, and as such the president therefore is
entitled to ensure that provisions of such treaty are adhered too and Nguyen Tuong Van is therefore extradited to
the Commonwealth of Australia.

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

In my view, this also enshrines that Nguyen Tuong Van is in effect entitled as a citizen of Singapore to the rights as
like Singaporeans are to the rights of being a Commonwealth citizen. Meaning that laws of the Commonwealth
countries and implied laws can be applied to any commonwealth citizen, irrespective if they are Singaporean nations
or not. where then there is a treaty, then Nguyen Tuong Van is entitled to the benefit of any relevant treaty, such as
a narcotics convention. As implied by this Constitution.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
In my view, a person sentenced to death (if this is not in itself ULTRA VIRES/UNCONSTITUTIONAL), but has
not been specifically ordered to serve a term of imprisonment until the execution of this person, then must be
released after the passing of 3 months. While this part relates to no citizen of Singapore it is already shown above
that Commonwealth citizenship provided equality to any other person who is a citizen of the Commonwealth with
that of a citizen of Singapore.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908
(Admin) (24th April, 2002)

1. In support of his submission that, for Article 6(1) to be engaged, it was necessary for the relevant
proceedings to be directly decisive of the civil rights in question, Mr Sales referred to and relied upon
what he described as the consistent body of European jurisprudence on this point over the last thirty years
(see paragraph 41 of Mr Sales written skeleton argument) in cases such as Ringeisen -v- Austria (No. 1)
(1971) 1 EHRR 455 at paragraph. 94, Albert & Le Compte -v- Belgium (1983) 18 EHRR 533 at
paragraph 28, Benthem -v- Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 1, Boden -v- Sweden (1987) 10 EHRR 367 at
paragraph 30, H -v- France (1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraphs 46-47 and Barmer-Schafroth -v-
Switzerland (1997) 25 EHRR 598 at paragraph 32. In the course of his submissions, Mr Sales referred to
the following passage in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) in the case
of Enzi -v- Austria (Application no. 29268/95) as a convenient and succinct statement of the relevant
principles of law upon which he relied:

The applicability of Article 6 depends on whether there was a dispute over rights and
obligations which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under
domestic law and, if so, whether this right was of a civil character within the
meaning of Article 6(1) (see the Oerlemans -v- the Netherlands judgment of 27
November 1991 paragraphs 45-49). Article 6(1) only applies if the right is civil in
character (see the Benthem -v- the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985
paragraph 32). The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the
existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. The outcome of
the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous
connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6(1) into play
(see the Allan Jacobson -v- Sweden judgment of 25 October 1989 paragraphs 66-67,
and the Masson and Van Zon -v- the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995 at
paragraph 44).

p7 14-8-2017 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
While you may have difficulties in following my reasoning of argument, in view that I understand no one so far may
have even raised this kind of argument regarding Nguyan Tuong Van, I urge you to at least order a postponement
of any execution as to ensure that the issues raised by me are appropriately considered.
If by implication or otherwise the death penalty must be considered abolished, and/or that Nguyan Tuong Van has
the rights of benefits of the government having entered in treaties with other countries for the good of Singapore
then such rights be catered for, and if needed Mr Nguyan Tuong Van is deported to the Commonwealth of
Australia subject to the Commonwealth of Australia instituting proceedings against Nguyan Tuong Van in regard
of his involvement in drug smuggling.
END QUOTE
While the High Court of Australia ruled in Sue v Hill that the Commonwealth of Australia
somehow became independent, this to me is utter and sheer constitutional nonsense but to avoid
this to be set out would only extend the matter further, and can be read up in my published
books, that the High Court of Australia lacked any such judicial powers!
In my view Mr Barnaby (backdown) Joyce is legitimately a Member of Federal Parliament if he
didnt himself personally claim to be a New Zealand national and its rights with it. Obviously
had the Federal Government supported my ongoing effort to clarify matters we may not now
have various members of Parliament having been ousted! If Mr Banaby (backdown) Joyce
personally endorsed any nationality of whatever other legal jurisdiction then he has taken
it upon himself, however any birthright that may have existed but was not pursued by Mr
Barnaby (backdown) Joyce I view never was intended by the Framers of the Constitution
to be a bar for being a Member of Federal Parliament. Perhaps now the Federal government
might just realise it error to ignore my past writings and better engage me to stop this flow of
disqualifications by ensuring matters are appropriately addressed.
You lot can continue to ignore me to your likings but in the end you may just learn a lesson that
doing so can be the downfall of not some Members of Parliament but the entire Government.
Whatever constitutional advisors the Federal Government may have I view you better get rid of
them ass obviously this avalanche of disqualifications must mean, at least in my view, they
havent got a clue what they are advising about.
QUOTE
Regardless if you initially may not agree with my views, at least have it checked out, as it turns out I am right then
Tuong Van Nguyens life might be saved from the gallows! Surely the life of an Australia is worth it to check it
out?
END QUOTE
Well then too it appeared to me the federal government ignored this.
The question is, when will politicians come to their senses and finally realise that there is too
much going wrong and obviously the current crop of constitutional advisers do not seem to be
giving the proper advice needed. As if they did then it wouldnt have ignored:
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
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
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
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
p8 14-8-2017 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