20190920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Hon David Coleman MP

Page 1
1
2
3 The Hon David Coleman MP 20-9-2019
4 Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
5 Email 'David.Coleman.MP@aph.gov.au
6
7 Cc:
8 The Hon Peter Dutton MP, Minister for Home Affairs
9 Peter.Dutton.MP@aph.gov.au
10
11
12 The Hon Jason Wood MP, Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs
13 Jason.Wood.MP@aph.gov.au
14
15 Re constitutional meaning of citizenship
16 Sir,
17 as I read in today’s Herald Sun to become a politicians and elected to the Parliament to take
18 up a position as a Minister you can be grossly incompetent as you do not need any qualifications.
19
20 Here we have a Prime Minister who was a Minister for Immigration besides yourself and Mr
21 peter Dutton as well as with Mr wood dealing with Multicultural affairs and well there seems to
22 be no end to the list of former Ministers dealing with immigration besides the long list of so
23 called legal advisers as well as office staff and somehow not a single one of you seem to have a
24 clue what really CITIZENSHIP really stands for.
25
26 How idiotic that I with my self-professed Crummy English am able to expose this elaborate rot?
27 It is that because of my self-professed Crummy English I am not one who has a perverted mind
28 because of brainwashing?
29
30 Any person who assumes CITIZENSHIP is a nationalist simply lacks a proper understanding as
31 to what the true meaning and application of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
32 1900 (UK) stands for1
33
34 It is totally irrelevant if the Commonwealth has purportedly legislation that dictates a certain
35 formula as in the end if such legislation violates the constitution then it has no legal force.
36 .
37 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
38 Australasian Convention)
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
41 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
42 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
43 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
44 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
20-9-2019 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
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
4 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
5 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
6 [start page 2004]
7 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 OK now you may argue that one has to pursue a legal argument for this. Well I did on 3
11 December 2002 and on 4 December 2004 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the Magistrates Court of
12 Victoria at Heidelberg WITH CONSENT OF THE PARTIES ordered that the 78B notice of
13 constitutional matters (which included the legal challenge to the constitutional validity of the
14 purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948) is to be heard and determined by the High Court of
15 Australia. The High Court of Australia even as by today has not heard and determined this.
16 Save to state that the Appeals before the County Court of Victoria (Case numbers T01567737 &
17 Q10897630) both were upheld unchallenged by any of the Attorney-Generals.
18 Hence, for all purposes and intend the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (so the 2007 version) is
19 ULTRA VIRES.
20 .
21 In my view Government lawyers should be well aware of the legal implications and in current
22 legal proceedings that were as recent before The Hon. Justice Mordecai BROMBERG should
23 have advised the court about this.
24 .
25 I will below quote my earlier correspondence to The Hon. Justice Mordecai BROMBERG.
26
27 While I can understand that those who were born and grew up with the version of the purported
28 Australian citizenship Act 1948 may have therefore held the view that CITIZENSHIP is an
29 Australian nationality, however any Minister as a “constitutional adviser” surely can be expected
30 to research what a policy is about and if any legislation is within constitutional context.
31 In my view the Framers of the constitution made clear that a child born in the Commonwealth of
32 Australia as like a child born in the USA gains the countries nationality regardless if the parents
33 are aliens.
34 That is an embedded legal principle and no amount of legislation by the Commonwealth
35 Parliament can override this.
36 .
37 This means that each and every Australian native born child, regardless of parents being aliens,
38 is automatically an Australian by nationality, and cannot be required to apply for a visa to be
39 able to stay in the Commonwealth of Australia. Neither can the Commonwealth or for that any
40 court act in violation of the child’s native born birth rights.
41 None of the courts are above the constitution, not even the High Court of Australia!
42
44 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
45 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
46 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
47 any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
48 which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
49 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
50 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
51 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
52 securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
53 that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
54 the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
55 Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
Page 3
1 daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
2 freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
3 one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
4 liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
5 work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
6 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
7 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
8 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
9 with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
10 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
11 next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
12 that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
13 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
14 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
15 Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
16 it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
17 Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
18 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
19 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
20 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
21 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
22 the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
23 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
24 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
25 sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
26 well.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 As Mr Edmund Barton also made clear that the High Court of Australia could only “interpret”
30 the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and when it therefore made a decision as to the
31 meaning of the constitution then it always paws part of the constitution.
32
33 With Sue v Hill the High Court of Australia assumed that the Commonwealth of Australia was
34 an independent nation.
35
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
39 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
40 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
41 and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
42 application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
43 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to
44 create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make
45 provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this
46 political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is
47 to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the
48 slightest degree.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 Therefore the High Court of Australia had no judicial authority to pursue something by backdoor
52 manner which it could not achieve so to say through the front door.
53
54 It means that for all purpose and intentions the State Parliaments remain the legislative bodies to
55 determine CITIZENSHIP. It is not a nationality but the abode of where a person resides.
56 However a child native born in the Commonwealth of Australia regardless of parentage position
57 is by birthright an Australian national.
58
Page 4
1 It is remarkable if not show of blatant and total ignorance that no lawyer/Minister ever bothered
2 to communicate me on these matters despite of the legal challenge I made and succeeded with it.
3 If anything it shows a total arrogance not to be interested in the FACT but rather what may suit
4 politically the Minister and so to say the HELL with what harm is inflicted against those children
5 who are unconstitutionally deported as STATELESS likely into a life of misery.
6
7 In my view every one (not to overlook lawyers who represent their clients (in immigration cases)
8 are so to say ripping of the taxpayers and others in pursuing litigation without presenting to the
9 courts the true facts of each person subject to deportation even so being a native born person of
10 the Commonwealth of Australia.
11
12 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that there will be a judiciary and in Gaynor v Burns
13 the High Court of Australia cannot deal with matters that fall within the judiciary. So why on
14 earth are people pestered to go through the hoops of the AAT when they should be going
15 through a Chapter III court is beyond me.
16
17 Mr Peter Dutton as a former police officer surely should be aware that we have a legal process
18 where it are the courts that ultimately is to decide legal conflicts. He also should be aware that to
19 conceal relevant details from the court is TO CAUSE OR LIKELY TO CAUSE A
20 MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE and may be to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE and can
21 be deemed to be CONTEMPT OF COURT and even CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE
22 COURT. Why then not just reveal to the court and so also the opponents what is really
23 constitutionally applicable.
24
25 I take it very serious that we have grossly incompetent Ministers (so their officials)/legal
26 representatives who unabated have been unconstitutionally deporting Australian native born
27 children as STATELESS.
28
29 In my view the correct manner to have dealt with the current family referred to as Tamils would
30 have been to have acknowledged that the Australian native born children have the Australian
31 nationality and therefore cannot be deported nor need any visa to be in the commonwealth of
32 Australia. Therefore the only issue before the Minister was if in view that the 2 children are by
33 birth Australians then should nevertheless the parents be deported and leave it up to them to
34 decide to either take the 2 children with them or leave them with others to be cared for.
35 .
36 While the Minister can exercise Guardianship of unaccompanied children who enter the
37 Commonwealth of Australia as aliens, the Minister has no position in regard of Australian native
38 born children. The Courts have to determine if the Ministers decision to deport was with the
39 acknowledgement that the 2 children are Australian native born children and they are not
40 deported nor subject to any order to be deported and if in all the circumstances the Minister acted
41 within his powers to deny the parents to remain in the commonwealth of Australia.
42 In my view the Minister at each occasion miserably failed to do so as to my understanding even
43 now the Minister has not acknowledged that the children are Australian native born children and
44 as such are Australian nationals but seems to wrongly rely upon some unconstitutional
45 legislation that exclude the children from their Australian birthrights.
46 Considering how long this has been going on and with so many other Australian native born
47 children it is my view that there is gross incompetence in how legislation is passed through the
48 parliament and how it is enforced.
49 When a person with my self-professed Crummy English can expose this elaborate rot then how
50 on earth can anyone trust the Minister, his officials and legal advisors and for that also the legal
51 representatives of each child having failed to provide the court with relevant details.
Page 5
1
2 Let is be very clear that while the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 compels a person to vote,
3 I defied this and in the end successfully had both appeals upheld as my written submissions were
4 that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and none of the Attorney-Generals even challenged
5 this. Yet in blatant ignorance to this the Governments still pursue compulsory voting.
6 Worse is that the details the various governments obtain are then spread out to other countries
7 and this means that a person not only wrongly is listed on a purported Commonwealth electoral
8 roll but is placed in jeopardy to have identity theft caused upon such person.
9 .
10 There is no legal provision within the constitution for the Commonwealth to have a
11 Commonwealth Electoral roll and in fact the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the
12 constitution the legal principle that the commonwealth would have to rely upon State electoral
13 rolls albeit can only allow those of ADULT age to vote in federal elections.
14
15 As long as we have arrogant Ministers with their officials and lawyers who perhaps lack enough
16 brain power to understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution we
17 will continue to deny Australian native born children their rights as Australian nationals.
18
19 In my view this is an act of terrorism and treason against We the People!
20
21 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
23 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
24 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
25 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in
26 this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the
27 peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
28 END QUOTE
29 And
30 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
33 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
34 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
35 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
36 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
37 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 It is very clear the Constitution belongs to the People, not the politicians and/or the courts.
41
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
48 Convention)
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
55 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
56 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
Page 6
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE
5 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
6 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
7 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
8 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Clearly, the constitution must not be perverted by the judiciary as that the word CITIZEN has
12 some meaning foreign powers may adhere to, but that it must be interpreted as the Framers of the
13 Constitution intended.
14 .
15 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
16 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
17 that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
18 trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
19 clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
20 harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
21 too much care has not been exercised.
22 END QUOTE
23 .
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
27 in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
28 make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
29 Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
30 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
31 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
32 for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
33 States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
34 Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
35 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
36 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given
37 to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
38 direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
39 there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
43 The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”,
44 “Commonwealth citizens”, “federal citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used ongoing
45 by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to
46 “nationality” but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the
47 Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that
48 the term “Australian citizenship” cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be
49 an “Australian nationality” merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a
50 declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section
51 128 of the Constitution.
52
53 13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
54 13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
56 Re; dual citizenship
57 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
Page 7
1 29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship

2 30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
5 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
9 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
11 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
15 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
16 Re; Commonwealth citizens
21 Re; federal citizenship
37 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
38
39 I am often criticised for what others deem lack of proper grammatical English but in my view I
40 rather have my self-professed Crummy English then to be so to say brain dead as it appears to
41 me Ministers (so their officials), lawyers, etc are!
42
43 QUOTE correspondence to The Hon. Justice Mordecai BROMBERG
44 The Hon. Justice Mordecai BROMBERG 20-9-2019
45 Email vicreg@fedcourt.gov.au <vicreg@fedcourt.gov.au>;
46
47
48 Re COMPLAINT & constitutional meaning of citizenship
49 Sir,
50 it appears to me from the limited internet articles I have read that your honour may have been
51 deceived as to parties appearing before Your Honour in legal proceedings on 19 September 2019
52 regarding the children Kopika and/or Thanicaam having likely omitted to provide the Court that
Page 8
1 the children born within the Commonwealth of Australia as Australian native born children and
2 by this automatically acquired Australian nationality then the Court would have no jurisdiction to
3 direct or otherwise the children to be held in any Commonwealth of Australia Detention Centre
4 and/or similar facilities which deny the said children their ordinary free movement any
5 Australian native born child has.
6
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
10 co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Anyone who understand how the American citizenship applies to native born children regardless
14 if their parents are aliens would understand the same applies in the Commonwealth of Australia
15 and are beyond the legislative powers of the Commonwealth of Australia.
16
17
18 MY INTEREST IN THE MATTER:
19
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
23
24 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
25 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
26 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
27 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Therefore as an Australian I am bound to convey to Your Honour through your Associate or
31 otherwise my concerns that the parties that appeared before the Court appear to me not to have
32 appropriately inform the Court of the relevant issues by concealment and/or other wise.
33
34
35 THE COURTS JURISDICTION
36
37 In my view the Courts jurisdiction can only exercise/invoke in regard of applications that are
38 within the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and with it
39 its embedded legal principles jurisdiction and not despite of this.
40
41 The Court therefore limited jurisdiction is one that I view is very simple: Is the youngest child an
42 Australian native born child? If the child is that all and any decision by the Minister and/or his
43 officials are NULL AND VOID as they are in violation of the said constitution. The
44 Commonwealth never had and still has not any constitutional legislative powers to define/declare
45 the birth rights of any Australian native born child. Hence, any decision to deport such a child on
46 basis of visa requirements is a falsehood and misconceived consideration.
47
48
49 THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILDREN:
50
51 While the parents are known to be within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth of
52 Australia and as such the Commonwealth is entitled to decide where the parents are kept the
53 children however both being Australian native born children cannot be subjected to any
54 directions/orders of the court or that of the Minister and/or his officials as the children are not
Page 9
1 within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth to be deported or requiring a visa to be in the
2 Commonwealth of Australia and hence only the parents can decide where the children ought to
3 stay.
4
5
6 PREVIOUS MINISTERIAL ASSESSMENTS/DECISION AND/OR COURT ORDERS:
7
8 All and any decisions/court orders that were the result of a failure to acknowledge that either of
9 the said children are invalid without legal force as the core issue that either and/or both children
10 are Australian native born children and therefore not subject to any Ministerial decision and/or
11 that of his officials must be considered a miscarriage of justice and the decisions/orders cannot
12 stand.
13
14 Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's Max. 349.
15
16 Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270
17
18 Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum. You are not to do evil that good may come of it. 11
19 Co. 74.
20
21 The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
22 federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
23 tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
24 Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section
25 256)
26 QUOTE
27 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.
28 Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys
29 the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts,
30 documents, and even judgments."
31 END QUOTE
32
33 As I informed all members of parliament over the years about the issue of CITIZENSHIP as
34 well as since 5 September 2019 also lawyers involved then clearly I view there can be no excuse
35 not to have informed the court about the issue concerned. Indeed the lawyers for the
36 commonwealth and all Attorney-Generals who were served with the 3 December 2002 78B
37 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS challenging the constitutional validity of the
38 purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 ought to have informed the court about this also. In
39 particular where none of the Attorney-Generals on 19 July 2006 challenged any of my written
40 submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT regarding this issue in my successful appeals.
41 In my view there can therefore be no excuse for those who appeared before the Court on 19
42 September 2019 and in previous hearing not to have informed the court about this.
43
44
45 THE COURTS POSSIBLE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH MATTERS IN THE INTERIM:
46
47 If the Court finds that indeed either and/or both of the children are born Australian native born
48 children then this completely alter the legal issues before the court as no Ministerial decision is

Page 10
1 required whatsoever for either of both of the children to remain in the Commonwealth of
2 Australia as that is their birth rights regardless if their parents are aliens.
3 The Court cannot tolerate that the children or either one of them are detained by the
4 commonwealth of Australia on the basis they are currently held. Indeed the time that may take
5 to have a full hearing would be contrary to the interest of the children. We must never accept that
6 a gross injustice is inflicted upon the children where had the lawyers concerned immediately
7 informed the court about the children’s Australian nationality by birth then unlikely would the
8 court have permitted the children to be placed in custody of the Commonwealth of Australia.
9
10 In my view, there can be absolutely no excuse for lawyers who are dealing with immigration
11 issues not to be aware of the fact that constitutionally any child native born within the
12 Commonwealth of Australia is a by this automatically an Australian by nationality. Indeed, this
13 to me indicates that more than likely the lawyers time and time again in immigration cases
14 wrongly dealt with their representation of those native born Australian children and that should
15 be investigated. After all being it sheer and/or total ignorance and/or otherwise there can be no
16 excuse that lawyers claiming to be immigration lawyers do not have the basic understanding
17 required to represent their under age clients and by this also fail to infirm the court about the
18 children true constitutional status.
19
20 While it is obvious that the Commonwealth of Australia has the right to deal with the parents and
21 so keep them in Detention Centre facilities or the like conditions in this case I view that the
22 Commonwealth wrongly held the children in Commonwealth Detention Centre already and
23 totally failed to acknowledge the true meaning and application of the Commonwealth of
24 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and as such cannot be relied upon to suddenly be more
25 competent and for this I view the Court is bound to order the immediate release of not only the
26 children but so that of the parents pending a fresh and appropriate assessment of the parents with
27 consideration that the children are Australian native born children and cannot be deported. It is
28 then up to the Commonwealth to make a proper assessment if on this basis the Commonwealth
29 should grant the parent the right to remain in the Commonwealth of Australia as not to break up
30 the family.
31 In my view where the current proceedings are regarding the rights of the youngest child the
32 Court cannot deal with any visa or the lack thereof regarding this child as she is by birthright to
33 be entitled to be and remain in the Commonwealth of Australia.
34
35 Hence, in my view the Court could direct that the currently proceedings were ill conceived and
36 all previous Ministerial and court decisions all must be deemed NULL AND VOID and the
37 Commonwealth must immediately release the parents and the children concerned. The
38 Commonwealth be ordered to make a proper assessment of the parents with the
39 acknowledgement that the children are Australian native born children.
40
41 That the parties, for so far there is any further need for this, are entitled to file before the court
42 amended applications that indicates the recognition of the children being Australian native born
43 children who are Australian nationals by birth. Where the Commonwealth decides to permit the
44 parents of the children to remain then the Commonwealth notify the court and the Applicant(s)
45 so the date for the Full Hearing can be set aside.
46
47 I noted in media publication that the court considered in particular that it must act to the best
48 interest of the youngest child, as the litigation was regarding the youngest child, but I look
49 forwards that the Court receiving this correspondence may now apply the same to both children
50 and not let them relinguish as undesirable aliens in Christmas Island but in view that the
51 Commonwealth failed to deal appropriate with the facts applicable the parents and children be
Page 11
1 allowed to return to where they were residing prior to their incarceration if the parents wish to do
2 so.
3
4
5 LIMITED ADDITIONAL DETAILS
6
7 In my view the courts associates (who I understand with deal with this correspondence) failure to
8 inform the Court appropriately about relevant CITIZENSHIP issues is to me of great concern.
9 Where I despite my self professed Crummy English can nevertheless expose the true meaning
10 and application of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then I view that
11 others in particular politicians and lawyers can have no excuse not to be aware of the same.
12
13 I have no particular financial interest in the current matter that is before the court and as such not
14 driven by greed or other financial interest.
15
16 While the details regarding CITIZENSHIP is considerable I view that the Court could always
17 request me to provide further and additional information relevant to the CITIZENSHIP issue if it
18 deems this appropriate and necessary. Hence I will limit myself to now quote my most recent
19 PRESS RELEASE of 19 September 2019 which I view may already be sufficient to the court to
20 perhaps direct an interim hearing as a matter of urgency to amend its 19 September 2019 orders
21 that give appropriate recognition to the children’s Australian nationality entitlements and rights.
22
23 For far too long the general community has been idle to stop this rot to detain and deport
24 Australian native born children as aliens. We need to pursue to uphold our constitutional
25 values!
26
27 This document can be downloaded from:
28 https://www.scribd.com/document/426544735/20190919-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-Suppl-72-Wrongful-
29 Deportations
30
31 QUOTE 20190919-Notes-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 20190919- issue Supplement 72- Wrongful
32 deportations
33 ISSUE: 20190919- Supplement 72- Wrongful deportations
34
35 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
36
37 * Gerrit, is this a emotional plea or just a constitutional issue to you?
38
39 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I see no need to try to make some emotional plea where the
40 rule of law must and can prevail.
41 I will quote below a correspondence i earlier today emailed to him and I received an automatic
42 confirmation. As such I know that he received it, albeit if he reads it that is for him to determine
43 but cannot excuse any ignorance.
44 QUOTE 20190919-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Dutton Minister
45 Mr Peter Dutton, Minister 19-9-2019
46 Email Peter.Dutton.MP@aph.gov.au'
47
48 Cc: Angel Aleksov, Barrister
49 Email aleksov@vicbar.com.au
50
51 Alice Graziotti
52 Estrin Saul Lawyers
53 Email info@estrinsaul.com.au
54
Page 12
1 Sir,
2 we all being human beings make errors in our lives however what is important is if we learn
3 from this.
4
6 QUOTE
9 END QUOTE
10
11 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/tamil-family-to-remain-in-australia-until-final-court-hearing/11526050
12 Tamil family from Biloela to remain in Australia until final hearing of deportation case
13 QUOTE
14 May 2015 Their first daughter Kopika is born
15 June 2017 Their second daughter Tharnicaa is born
16 END QUOTE
17
18 The issue is therefore if either or both of the children were born within the Commonwealth of
19 Australia, being it in a State and/or Territory. If they were then irrespective of their parents being
20 aliens/(so called non-citizens)/undocumented person as in the USA the children nevertheless
21 acquired at birth the nationality of the country they were born. Hence, Kopika and Thanicaa
22 where I understand they were born within a State in the Commonwealth of Australia then are
23 Australian native born children.
24
25 I take it very serious of the Commonwealth and/or any lawyers acting for the children concealed
26 this from Federal Court judge Mordecai Bromberg.
27 It appears to me that the issue should never be if Kopika and/or Thanicaa should be subject to a
28 vias assessment because they in my view are falling outside the legislative powers of the
29 Commonwealth being Australian native born children.
30 The Commonwealth never had nor has any constitutional legislative powers to determine the
31 rights of an Australian native born child as to nationality. The constitution limit the
32 Commonwealth legislative powers to naturalize aliens! One cannot naturalise an Australian
33 native born child.
34 Neither can the Commonwealth invoke any immigration/emigration powers or that of influx of
35 criminals as it would be grossly absurd to claim that the children somehow are criminals, seeking
36 to re-enter the Commonwealth of Australia.
37
38 I accept that where it comes to the parents then the Commonwealth has always had the
39 constitutional powers to deport them if it deems to be appropriate in the circumstances.
40 However having stated this, it appears to be very obvious, at least from the various media
41 reports, that you neither any court so far appropriately heard and determined/considered the
42 matters regarding this family.
43 .
44 It is in my view totally irrelevant if the Commonwealth of Australia did or didn’t advise the
45 parents that they could not remain in Australia with or without children, this as the constitution
46 cannot be overruled by a Minister and neither by any tribunal/court.
47
48 In Gaynor v Burns the High Court of Australia made clear that a tribunal not being a court
49 cannot deal with any constitutional issue.
50
51 In my view the issue should always have been as follows:
52
Page 13
1 In view that the children are Australian native born children and so Australians by
2 nationality then should the parents be deported nevertheless and they then decide to take
3 the children with them or leave the children in Australia in care of others so that they can
4 apply to be allowed to re-enter the Commonwealth of Australia to be re-united with their
5 children or should the Minister in this case even so disapproving of the parents conduct
6 decide that where the children are Australian native born children then it is in their interest
7 the Commonwealth allows the parents to remain in the Commonwealth of Australia .
8
9 In my view the various reports in the media do not appear to show this cardinal question as such
10 was ever placed before any tribunal/court.
11
12 In my view the Commonwealth of Australia has NO constitutional legislative powers to deport
13 an Australian native born child into a life of misery as a STATELESS child.
14
16 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
17 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
18 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
19 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
20 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
21 any private person would be.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 In my view there would be a justified claim for compensation against the Minister personally
25 where he has blatantly concealed from the courts that the 2 children actually are Australian
26 native born children and as such do not fall within the category to require to apply for any visa
27 and their detention in any Commonwealth Detention Centre is therefore unlawful.
28
29 The Framers of the Constitution made very clear:
30
31 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
33 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
34 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
35 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 And
39
41 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
42 The resolutions conclude:
43 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
44 appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
45 upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
46 majority.
47 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
48 similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
49 possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
50 advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
51 lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
52 gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
53 END QUOTE
54

Page 14
1 As such there can be no excuse for a Minister to claim not to know relevant details of the true
2 meaning and application of the constitution.
3
4 It also in my view is totally irrelevant what the tribunals/courts may have so far decided with the
5 parents and the eldest child in that if at no time the true nationality of the eldest child and now
6 the youngest child was considered then all and any past decision is NULL AND VOID.
7
8 Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's Max. 349.
9
10 Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270
11
12 Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum. You are not to do evil that good may come of it. 11
13 Co. 74.
14
15 The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
16 federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
17 tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
18 Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section
19 256)
20 QUOTE
21 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.
22 Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys
23 the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts,
24 documents, and even judgments."
25 END QUOTE
26
27 I deplore the conduct of lawyers who seek to agitate the general community to protest against the
28 deportation as a way to try to place pressure upon a Minister to revise his decision where in
29 particular as I have set out the Minister simply failed to make a decision within the context of the
30 true meaning and application of the constitution.
31 In fact it is my view that Federal Court judge Mordecai Bromberg ought to deal with the lawyers
32 (legal representatives) the Minister and any of his officials involved in the case for
33 CONTEMPT OF COURT and CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT as well as
34 for PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE by concealing the proper status of either
35 child.
36
37 There can in my view be absolutely no excuse for Immigration officials and any Minister to have
38 blatantly disregarded what the true meaning and application stands for.
39
40 There can be absolutely no excuse for Australian native born children having previously
41 deported as STATELESS where they by this were plunged into a life of misery.
42 .
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
46
47 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
48 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
49 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
50 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
Page 15
1 END QUOTE
2
3 I for one do not for one of iota approve any parent to misuse children for the sake of
4 immigration, however also recognise that it is normal for a heterosexual couple to have children
5 where nature provides for this ability and then the issue for the Commonwealth of Australia is to
6 prevent any childbearing opportunity to eventuate by keeping such persons outside the
7 Commonwealth of Australia. However where the Commonwealth allows persons to have a child
8 in the commonwealth of Australia then I view it must accept it cannot interfere with the
9 Australian native born child.
10
11 Essentially the commonwealth now has to notify all and any child previously deported as
12 STATELESS but which were born in the Commonwealth of Australia that they have and
13 retained their Australian nationality. The Commonwealth then has to re-consider each previous
14 deportation of such child and other family members as to their right to be in the Commonwealth
15 of Australia.
16
17 I am not employed by any law firm as my issue is that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I must act
18 as a SENTRY as I view each and every person must do. Nothing I stated above is intended and
19 neither must be perceived that I approve of the conduct of the parents however my issue is that
20 the children are Australian natives born children and cannot be deported by the commonwealth
21 of Australia of being aliens/non-citizens/STATELESS>
22
23 You are welcome to contact me for further details if you desire to do so. Due to a hearing
24 disability I prefer to communicate via email but you can text me via my mobile 04 250 299 44.
25
26 QUOTE 18-9-2019 correspondence Angel Aleksov Barrister
27 Angel Aleksov, Barrister 18-9-2019
28 Email aleksov@vicbar.com.au
30 Angel,
31 while I may not be in favour of anyone using a child to try to sidestep legalities as not to be
32 deported on the other hand I also opposes any law which in my view is unconstitutional to be
33 used to deny a child of citizenship. Australian CITIZENHIP (see below) are as the USA
34 citizenship of any Australian native child, regardless if the parents are aliens. Both children
35 being Australian native born children are outside the Commonwealth legislative powers to be
36 deported! That in my view is the real caridnal issue for the court to determine!
37
39 QUOTE
42 END QUOTE
43
44 I in 2001 being an INDEPENDENT candidate in the Jagajaga electorate refused to vote. The
45 AEC then pursued me in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka. In 2004 again I refused to vote and the AEC
46 did pursue me for this also. I represented myself and in the end having also filed a Section 78B
47 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER on 3 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of
48 Victoria at Heidelberg by consent on 4 December 2004 ordered that the Section 78B NOTICE
49 OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS regarding CITIZENSHIP, etc, is to be heard and
50 determined by the High Court of Australia.
51 On 19 July 2006 on appeal the County Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction
52 upheld both appeals with none of the Attorney-Generals challenging anything I had
53 submitted in my 409 pages written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT, including that
Page 16
1 the Commonwealth has no constitutional legislative powers to define/declare citizenship. The

2 high Court of Australia so far never heard and determined the Section 78B NOTICE OF
3 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, and likely will never do so.
4 In law, when you formally object/challenge the validity of legislation as I did then for all
5 purposes and intend the legislation challenged is ULTRA VIRES AB Inito.
6 This means that the purported Australian Citizenship Act (2007) has no legal force as the
7 Commonwealth was specifically denied by the Framers of the Constitution to define/declare
8 citizenship. No referendum was ever held to amend the constitution to provide the
9 Commonwealth with legislative powers regarding define/declare citizenship.
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the operation of the
19 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
20 to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
21 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of
22 persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are
23 citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant.
24 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
25 also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
26 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
27 is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised
28 adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful
29 as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start
30 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
31 citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however
32 much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because
33 no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than
34 £1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
35 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

36 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a
37 foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth,
38 and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
39 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 There is a lot more to it but as a self educated constitutionalist and (now retired) Professional
43 Advocate hold the view that constitutionally that is only a State can confer citizenship to a
44 person and this is obtained by birth in a State. Territories are held to be quasi states. Therefore,
45 for all purposes and intend in my view both Kopika and Tharunicaa are therefore citizens of
46 the State (not aliens) they were born in and by this automatically Australian citizens. In my view
47 they are for this native born. If either child had been born in a detention centre outside the
48 Commonwealth of Australia then I suspect citizenship doesn’t exist as such at birth. However,
49 only the States/Teritories can provide for State Citizenship and by this (again) Australian
50 citizenship is automatically. What the Commonwealth has done is to pervert the meaning of
51 CITIZENSHIP into being some nationality. And regretfully the High Court of Australia has gone
52 along with this utter and sheer nonsense. In my view the children cannot be deported.
53 Still, as I in a legal format challenged the Commonwealth powers to define/declare citizenship
54 and therefore this remains ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless or until if ever at all a court of
55 competent jurisdiction declare it to be INTRA VIRES. In view that this so far has not occurred it
56 means that the purported Australian Citizenship Act is and remains to be ULTRA VIRES.
57
Page 17

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
4 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
5 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
6 [start page 2004]
7 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 You are welcome to contact me for further details if you desire to do so. Due to a hearing
11 disability I prefer to communicate via email but you can text me via my mobile 04 250 299 44.
12
13 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
14 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
15 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

16 (Our name is our motto!)
17 END QUOTE 18-9-2019 correspondence Angel Aleksov Barrister
18
19 In my view there should be a proper investigation by the Legal Service Commission if lawyers
20 and others failed to appropriately disclose to the court relevant details. It is in my view totally
21 irrelevant if anyone may claim to have grown up under a system that claims to be different, this
22 as after all any client, in particular small child, is entitled to have competent legal representation.
23

28 END QUOTE 20190919-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Dutton Minister
29
30 * So your view is that the lawyers and others all failed to provide the true facts before the courts?
31
32 **#** Indeed. In my view if any lawyer would have raised this issue then unlikely would the
33 court have accepted the children to be placed in some detention centre. We must never accept
34 that innocent children are wrongly detained. I view that the Commonwealth had no legal position
35 to do so.
36
37 * But didn’t the court previously rule the eldest child could be deported?
38
39 **#** That is to me totally meaningless as where an order was obtained by FRAUD, as I view
40 this was part of it, then the orders cannot be enforced.
41
42 * If all wrongly deported children are actually Australian nationals then this would be a serious
43 matter, don’t you think?
44
45 **#** Indeed. And it also would underline how devastating it was to those children and how
46 grossly incompetent lawyers in immigration matters have been.
47
48 * You as a CONSTITUTIONALIST seem to be able to do a better job then all immigration
49 lawyers so far were able to do in that regard.
50
51 **#** When I was in management of factories I then discovered that machine setters who
52 worked for decades in the job actually had inborn errors. They simply didn’t realize this. And I
53 view the same with lawyers/judges/politicians and their officials. They all grew up in believing
54 some myth and well the innocent children suffered because of this. Perhaps if those wrongly
Page 18
1 deported started to sue them all instead of taxpayers being lumped with the bills then we might
2 finally get a better system.
3
4 *. Wouldn’t it be difficult for anyone to realize that a child born in Australia is as like in the
5 USA having the nationality of the country it is born in?
6
7 **#** That to me is no excuse. They are getting paid to do a job and I provide my services free
8 of charge. I do it because I do care that the true meaning and application of the constitution is
9 followed. I yesterday also forwarded an email to PM Scott Morrison so during his trip to the
10 USA, etc, besides filling his ego and stomach may just fill his brains how a native born child in
11 the USA regardless if the parents are aliens/undocumented persons still gains American
12 nationality. We should never permit that innocent Australian native born children are held in a
13 detention centre as if they are aliens. Not a single member of parliament should allow this to be
14 part of governance! SHAME, SHAME!
15
16 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
17
18 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
19 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
21 END QUOTE 20190919-Notes-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 20190919- issue Supplement 72- Wrongful
22 deportations
23
24 I urge the Court to request the Legal Service commissioner to investigate the conduct of all
25 parties that appeared before the Court in the current litigation before the court as to if appropriate
26 disclosures were made or not and any sanctions to be taken against any and/or all of those who
27 were held to have not appropriately disclosed relevant details.
28
29 It must never be ignored that what we are on about is under age children who themselves lack
30 any ability to represent themselves appropriately in a very complex legal environment. My
31 concern is that more than likely this denial of proper legal representation may have been
32 occurring for years on end where lawyers so to say were enriching themselves in alleged legal
33 representation where they might have been able to avoid a lot of litigation had they in the first
34 place appropriately informed the court in each litigation as to the status of any Australian native
35 born child.
36 We must as a society never permit Australian native born children to be deported as
37 STATELESS in a life of misery and I view it would be appropriate for this that a proper
38 reconsideration of all children previously Australian native born children is made and all relevant
39 cases are reconsidered.
40
41 In my view there must be a certification for any lawyer to be able to practice immigration cases
42 before the court as I consider it appalling that at least in my view there is such a gross failure to
43 appropriately represent under aged children who are Australian native born children, and by this
44 even if not deliberately intending to do so have perverted the court of justice and caused a
45 miscarriage of justice time and time again.
46
47 In my view each court has the inherited legal powers to set aside any orders which it view were
48 obtained causing a miscarriage of justice, due to concealment or otherwise.
49
50 My writings might be extra ordinaire but then I view that in the circumstances prevailing this is
51 the only way to attract the courts attention.
52

Page 19
1 In my view the Minister and his officials also must be required to have at the very least some
2 basic understanding and comprehension as to the true meaning and application of the
3 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), as to me this too is a very serious
4 matter where they appear to me to fail to understand what is applicable regarding cases they are
5 to consider.
6

11 END QUOTE correspondence to The Hon. Justice Mordecai BROMBERG
12
13 I personally would like to see the day that the victims of this rot will sue all those who failed to
14 act appropriately.
15
16 While a Minister can be shielded if acting within his portfolio it is a different issue where a
17 Minister being stupidity, blatant ignorance and/or otherwise make decisions that are not within
18 his portfolio. In my view the deportation of Australian native born children as STATELESS is
19 outside a Ministers powers and so I view the Minister can and should in his private capacity be
20 held legally accountable.
21 Only then may we finally get more competent Ministers in positions of decision making power.
22

27


20190920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Hon David Coleman MP

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

20190920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Hon David Coleman MP

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Page 1

20-9-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

1 29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship

20-9-2019 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20-9-2019 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 the Commonwealth has no constitutional legislative powers to define/declare citizenship. The

35 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

1 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

15 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

26 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

20-9-2019 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

20-9-2019 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

También podría gustarte