ISSUE: 20180215- Re Can one person hold 2 Senate seats that is the question, etc, & the constitution

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

I had a dream! Don’t worry I am not going to be some religious freak to try to convince some
religious issue over everyone. It is about incompetent amendments of the constitution!
I di however end up of having a dream and well checking the constitution and considering recent
past I view that technically nothing prevents one person to hold 2 Senate seats at the same time.
Remember Rodney Culleton of One Nation who so to say was ousted by the High Court of
Australia and then the next person on the party ticket was held to be entitled to be the new
Senator? And actually this too happened with other persons ousted from the Senate.
The constitution will not allow a person holding a seat in one House to also have a seat in
another House. And the way elections for the House of Representatives operates, you got this ab
normality that for example Barnaby Joyce having been outed could then re-contest his seat, as
did for example John Alexander, but Senators ousted cannot do so as then the next person on the
party ticket has preference. As such, while the system was supposed to be the same for the
Senate and the House of Representatives it is not at least since the 1977 amendment to the
constitution.
So, let follow now my dream and you may just realise that indeed one person could hold 2 seats
in the senate. It might be exceptional but nevertheless it can happen:
Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka decided to stand this time as a political candidate for a political party
“Protect elderly from nursing home abuses” In a half Senate election. And he is second on the
party ticket after Mr Keyway. His wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel decides to stand as an
INDEPENDENT candidate for the same half senate election. Votes are counted and well Gerrit
Hendrik Schorel misses out while his wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel is successful.
Olga Hlavka-Schorel not driving a car has her husband driving her wherever, at their own cost,
as she simply doesn’t trust strange drivers.
Gerrit accompanies his wife Olga to the Senate but when the bells are going he vacate the Senate
and just wait around until his wife is ready to go home (to wherever they stay overnight). Forget
Gerrit not trusting his wife as at 85 she surely isn’t going to be fornicating with others.
While Gerrit has a clearance to enter the Senate and duly so as Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka,
nevertheless staff generally refer to him as being the husband of Senator Hlavka-Schorel and as
such refer to home as Mr Hlavka-Schorel.
After close to 3years a new half Senate election is there and while Gerrit remains to be a Member
of the Party he doesn’t like to miss out again and so decides to stand as an INDEPENDENT
candidate. In the meantime Senator Keyways right to be in the Senate has been questioned on
basis of Citizenship. Gerrit adamantly pursues Senators Keyway’s entitlement but the High Court
of Australia hearing the case in late November makes clear that due to the work on the books it
will not hand down a decision until middle of June and then announces if Senator Keyway is
entitled to be a Senator or his election was invalid.
OK, Gerrit realizes that if Senator Keyway is ousted than he would be automatically the next
person on the party’s ballot paper to be the Senator, but what if the Court doesn’t oust Senator
Keyway? So, Gerrit decide he better proceeds to stand as an INDEPENDENT candidate. The
election is held and weeks passes and then in mid January the Senate votes are finally tallied up
p1 15-2-2018 © 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 Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka is declared to be a successful candidate. And days later the High
Court of Australia hand down its decision that Mr Keyway was not an eligible candidate and
hence Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka being the next on the party’s ballot box is the new Senator. Now we
have that Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka is both a Senator-elect because of the half Senate election as
well as a Senator because of the court’s ruling, well until he takes up the seat.
So the following now happens:
****
Governor-General: You are Mr Gerrit Hendrik Schorel and to be sworn in to be a Senator for the State of Victoria?
Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: Indeed I am.
****
The Governor-General now does the procedure and declare Mr Gerrit Hendrik-Schorel to be a Senator.
****
Governor-General: I notice that there is a second Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka listed to be sworn in, may I ask you is
that a relative, perhaps your son?

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: No, I was sworn in for both seats.

Governor-General: I am aware about your writings as a constitutionalist but I will have to check with my legal
advisors.

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: I wait.

.
Governor-General: I have just checked with my legal advisors and it appears the constitution doesn’t actually
prevent one person, at least in the current circumstances to hold both seats. As such you actually were sworn in for
both seats at the same time.

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: Thank you.

****
On 2 July Senator Olga Hlavka-Schorel accompanied by her husband Senator Schorel-Hlavka attend to the Senate.
****
Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: Sir, my wife Senator Hlavka-Schorel and I will be entering the Senate.

Senate staff member: Yes, Mr Hlavka-Schorel you can proceed as usual.

****
The staff member as usual referred to Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka as Mr Hlavka-Schorel this despite that the clearance
badge shows Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka.)

The bells are ringing and the staff member comes to Senator Schorel-Hlavka advising him he has to leave the senate,
not realizing that he is actually talking to Senator Schorel-Hlavka.

However Senator Schorel-Hlavka stays put.

The President of the Senate who also referred to Senator Schorel-Hlavka in the past as Mr Hlavka-Schorel enters the
Senate and notice Senator Schorel-Hlavka to be in the Senate standing still next to Senator Hlavka-Schorel (as no
one had indicated to Senator Schorel-Hlavka)where he was to sit in either seat.
****
President: Mr Hlavka-Schorel would you kindly remove yourself from the Senate floor as the bells have rang and
you are not permitted to remain in the Senate.
Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: Thank you, but I am entitled to stay as a Senator.

President: Sir, it is a criminal offence to claim to be a commonwealth official and I demand you immediately leave
the Senate. I will instruct your clearance to be revoked and to be permanently banned from the Senate. The fact that
your wife is a Senator doesn’t give you any special privileges and certainly not to falsely claim to be a
commonwealth officer.

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: Mr President I repeat I am entitled to be in the Senate and warn you about the improper
language you use against me.

President: (to the staff member) remove Mr Hlavka-Schorel from the Senate floor with the assistance of 2security
guards and prevent him from re-entering ever again the Senate.

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: ( to the staff member and the 2 security officials) I advise you not to touch me as this
would constitute an assault upon a Senator.

p2 15-2-2018 © 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
Staff member: Come on Mr Hlavka-Schorel this is not some game. We know who you are over all those years you
have attended with your wife Senator Hlavka-Schorel and so just peacefully without causing any disturbance leave
with us as otherwise we will have to use force.

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: for all those years you refer to me as Mr Hlavka-Schorel even so my clearance badge
shows I am Mr Schorel-Hlavka and always was so, and I am in fact Senator Schorel-Hlavka. If you check your
records and contact the Governor-General you will find I am Senator Schorel-Hlavka. Actually I am to occupy 2
seats in the Senate.

Staff member: I will have to report back to the President but will leave the 2 security guards with you.

The President shortly thereafter entered the Senate:

President: Senator Schorel-Hlavka I apologize for the mix up and the Governor-General indeed confirmed you are
to occupy 2 seats in the senate.

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: Mr President I do not accept your apology and submit you resign as President as you
gravely insulted me that I was some imposter and should have my clearance revoked and banned from ever entering
the Senate as well as committed a crime to impersonate a commonwealth officer. Also, it is clear that despite my
clearance badge showing Schorel-Hlavka you and about most other staff members kept referring to me over all those
years as Mr Hlavka-Schorel, which I view places in question what a secuarity bade is about if you ignore the details
on it.

President: In the current circumstances I will withdraw and the Deputy President will preside.

Deputy President: I welcome all Senators and do apologise to Senator Schorel-Hlavka about the problems that
eventuated. I may say that from onset, some years ago, I actually asked Senator Schorel-Hlavka why his security
badge was as such and not Hlavka-Schorel and it was then explained to me and I always referred to Senator Schorel-
Hlavka as Mr Schorel-Hlavka.

Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka: Mr Deputy President, I thank you for the past courtesy you provided to me and may I
indulge to request that seating arrangements can be made so my wife can sit next to me where I am entitled to 2
seats in the Senate.

Deputy President: Senator Schorel-Hlavka if Senator Hlavka-Schorel desires to do so there is no objection in that
regard.

Senator Hlavka-Schorel: Mr Deputy President thank you and I will take up a seat next to my husband Senator
Schorel-Hlavka.
****
This describes the dream I had as such, and one may find that this is a plausible possibility that one person
coincidentally could take up 2 seats in the Senate, but the same cannot eventuate in the House of Representatives.

There is nothing uncommon of people with identical names to be candidates in elections and where then they are
dealing with Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka an INDEPENDENT and Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka of the political party
“Protect elderly from nursing home abuses” then not uncommon people may assume two different persons involved.
My Father was Gerrit Hendrik Schorel and so I was original and my father’s older brother was Gerrit Hendrik
Schorel and his son was also Gerrit Hendrik Schorel. And when my uncle Gerrit Hendrik Schorel passed away (at
age 86) in my house in Berriwillock people assumed I had died, this, as my uncle had only arrived hours earlier and
so the people in the town didn’t know about him. Apparently the flight from the Netherlands had been too much for
him. And people often confuse me with Hlavka-Schorel but not my wife as Schorel-Hlavka.
Anyhow the issue is that in such extreme circumstances you could have a person to be entitled to occupy 2 seats in
the Senate. This is the problem when people fool around with amending the constitution without having any clue
how this could result in problems.
Likewise the con-job ss51(xxvi) referendum was in my view an absurdity but I will not delve into this now. Also the
issue of purporting to amend the constitution to recognise Aboriginals as the First Australians where I understand
they drove out the original inhabitants and may have exterminated some tribes also and taken over to claim land
rights and be First Australians which I understand they never were .

The Framers of the Constitution didn’t hold that there was any group within Australia about land
rights!
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:

p3 15-2-2018 © 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
 We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the
whole-have no enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the
soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for the territory
the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves.
END QUOTE
Then consider also:
QUOTE 13-2-2018 email
Even before the arrival of the Australoids (alias the 'Blackfellows'), several waves of migrants had
already come to the World's Southernmost Continent inhabitable by man. One such group was the
Negritos, or Mimi people. Traces of their earlier occupancy of Mainland Australia can still be found in
the Northern Territory, and near Cairns in Queensland.
END QUOTE 13-2-2018 email
It is therefore obvious that the recognition of any previous inhabitants as First Australians
in the constitution could not be Aboriginals (Australoids) but ought to be to those who were
living in what is now known as the Commonwealth of Australia before them and may very
well be groups of people prior to the Negritos and Mimi people. This would then also
indicate that past land rights were wrongly obtains and should be declared null and void.
It is a saying that you never should push it too far. I view that the Aboriginals has so to say
steamrolled others and not without the politicians seeking to harness votes and now their
persistence to claim more and more and wanting to claim to be the first Australians to be
recognised in the constitution and I understand from Aboriginal elders they pursue in the end an
Aboriginal government to replace the Federal government all together so that Aboriginal law will
be the main law, underlines this rot has to stop!
QUOTE 13-2-2018 email
RE: see attachment 20180213-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Which
Aboriginal tribes where the so called First Australians, etc, & the constitution
Laurence Heal <heall@westnet.com.au>
Today at 2:18 (13-2-2018)
To 'Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.'
Message body
Dear Gerrit
Thank you for this very interesting item. It reinforces the fact that there were at least two
cultures prior to the present day aboriginal “Carpentarian “ culture. The following are the first three pages of
an article by a Dr Lee titled THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION This
indicates that the Aborigines were not the first culture here. He quotes a lot of Prof. Manning Clarke
research.
Interestingly enough I have seen a film on New Zealand settlement that shows the wreck of a
Chinese boat of 3000 years ago that was 140 feet long, also it states that there is evidence that both the Ainu
and Carpentarians were both in NZ.

Quote Dr Lee
By Rev. Prof. Dr. Barrister Francis Nigel Lee
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
Even before the arrival of the Australoids (alias the 'Blackfellows'), several waves of migrants had already
come to the World's Southernmost Continent inhabitable by man. One such group was the Negritos, or Mimi
people. Traces of their earlier occupancy of Mainland Australia can still be found in the Northern Territory,
and near Cairns in Queensland.
Thereafter, various tribes of Australoids (today often called 'Aboriginals'), arrived at different times from the
north or from the northwest. They displaced not only one another, but also finally drove off the Mimi
Negritos from the Mainland and into Tasmania — where the last full-bloods finally died out about a century
and a half ago.
Today, there are at least 4000 living mixed-blood descendants1 of the Black Tasmanian Negrito or Mimi
people. Their ancestors were altogether quite distinct in culture, language and race2 from those of the present
Black Australoids who displaced them.
Already in 1898, Prof. Dr. Alan Carroll (M.A.., D.Litt., Ph.D., D.Sc., &c.) — one of the World's greatest
ethnologists — published a paper in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society of Australasia. Dr.
Carroll stated: "The present black people [viz. the Mainland Black Australians] belong to the neolithic...stone-
age and culture....

p4 15-2-2018 © 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
 Previous and older blacks [the ancestors of the Black Tasmanians]...were in Australia in the palaeolithic age
and culture.... They...were...very different in all ways to the Australian Blacks" alias those today often called
Aborigines. The latter then killed the men and appropriated the womenfolk of the former. 3
The Marxist Prof. Manning Clark on the Mainland Australoids' oppression of the Negritos
For years, Professor Dr. Manning Clark was gaining a reputation and being built up as Australia's greatest
Historian. In 1962, Clark insisted4 with some degree of objectivity at the very beginning of his multi-volume
work titled A History of Australia: "Civilization did not begin in Australia until the last quarter of the
eighteenth century.... The early inhabitants of the Continent created cultures, but not civilizations.
"The first of these were the Negrito people — short, dark-skinned, curly-haired and broad-nosed — who were
forced to migrate...by the movement into those areas of people of a higher material culture....
END QUOTE 13-2-2018 email
And
QUOTE 13-2-2018 email
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
-3-
Earlier, however, Clark's writings were free from such overt leftist bias. Here, for example, is the relevant
section from his original 1963 book A Short History of Australia — the section expurgated in subsequent
editions thereof from 1969 onward: "So far there have been four migrations of people to Australia.... The
first...were the Negritos, who were forced to move south...by people with a superior material culture. They
were followed by the Murrayians, a people related to the Ainu in Japan. They in turn were pushed further
south in Australia by the Carpentarians, who were related to the Vedda in Ceylon....
"The Negritos became the aborigines of Tasmania; the Murrayians were driven to the east and west coasts of
the mainland...; the Carpentarians remained in the tropical fringes of the northern coast.... The fourth
[migration]...brought the Europeans." 7 (All emphases mine — F.N. Lee.)
Writing in New Life,8 the eminent Australian archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson drew attention to "details of
rock art in Kakadu National Park where the oldest known art predates the rise of the sea level some 6000
years ago.... Most images are drawings of highly active people.... Aborigines say the art belongs to an earlier
group they call the Mimi people.... This could have an important bearing on the vexed question of Aboriginal
land rights."
In 1993, Scott Plowman in the Sydney Morning Herald cited the Australian ethnologists N.B. Tindale and
H.A. Lindsay — whom Prof. Manning Clark himself had formerly referred to with approval9 — as regards
the ancestors of Australia's Black Mainlanders encountered by Captain Cook in 1770. Of those Black
Mainlanders, Plowman then wrote:10
"These intruders migrated from Asia and Indonesia...hopping from island to island.... They became the
current Australian Aborigines. The little people, who were here first, were harassed and killed and
continually driven south.... The tall men...left the [Negrito] pygmies isolated...in Tasmania.... It is not
sustainable that our current Aborigines can claim first-use land rights.... Did the current original [viz.
Mainland Black] Australians pay as much respect and compassion to the pygmies' sacred sites, as they
[today's Black Mainlanders] demand from the rest of us?" No way!
END QUOTE 13-2-2018 email
Despite reportedly 45% of Australia being under Aboriginal possessions it is remarkable that
those who have those landholdings nevertheless do not bother to assist those Aboriginals living
in squalor, but somehow blame the non-Aboriginals for their problems.
Stop the ill-conceived and incompetence of amending the constitution so that the true meaning
and application of the constitution can be known and applied.

Designed 25-10-2004 to represent all people!

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!)
p5 15-2-2018 © 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