Communicat you are free to deal with one item at the time. What I stated are merely some issues, so to say, the tip of the iceberg.
Because of the huge amount of material I have to go through in regard of the books I publish I am not at liberty to always post on the Internet, hence I listed some and you can deal with them one at the time. If then I can attend to it further I will and otherwise it takes a bit longer.

The issue nevertheless remains that you attacked me (randomly) severely and as yet haven’t even shown anything to justify that attack! At the very least you ought to have the credibility to apologise for this.

In particular where there are students who seek to obtain clarification about matters it is not helpful to them if a poster is raving on about another poster being wrong but not showing why another poster is wrong or claimed to be wrong.

OK, start on “CITIZENSHIP” and try to prove me wrong!

For example, show when a Section 128 referendum was held to approve an amendment of the Constitution to transfer legislative powers from the States to the Commonwealth of Australia?
For the record, on 30-9-2003 I published;

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

This book also then addressed the issue why Pauline Hanson & David Ettridge were wrongly convicted, and subsequently the Court of Criminal appeal in November 2003 about word for word used this legal argument to overturn the convictions!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
Dr. QUICK.-
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.

And further:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Mr. SYMON.-
It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
And
Mr. SYMON.-
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.
And
Mr. SYMON.-
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship.
And
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.

Considering this being a posting and limited to publish the above is some basics to indicate that Australian citizenship (Commonwealth-citizenship) is derived from State-citizenship, nothing to do with nationality!

Sir
I took the trouble to look your name up on the internet. It was interesting.
However I still find your words confusing and don't feel we can fruitfully continue this discussion.
I would point out just one thing. There is no compulsion whatsoever to vote. There is a compulsion to attend at the polling booth, take a ballot paper and put it in the box provided but there is no compulsion to mark it.
That mistake alone on your part would raise questions in my mind about the accuracy of what else you have to say.

The High-Court-of-Australia it self acknowledged this in the Albert Lange case that the AEC (Australian-Electoral-Commission) cannot actually check if a person completed a ballot paper as required by law but held that if a person failed to vote relied upon what the AEC could prove in Court. I used this in litigation versus the AEC and the Court ordered that the AEC had to file and serve all relevant details/information to prove I had FAILED-TO-VOTE. This, even so I admitted I had refused to vote but challenged the Courts jurisdiction that it could not hear and determine the matters in the first place.
As I relied upon the Lange case, and use that in my books also, there is therefore nothing new you put forwards. Hence your claim that I was wrong again is your error. Actually, the AEC sought to rely upon Section 383 of the AEC1918 "averment" that they do not have to prove it that I FAILED TO VOTE but in that also I defeated them (the AEC)in that Commonwealth law cannot interfere with State Courts provisions and it was for this not applicable.
The AEC also had a problem that it was not challenged that I had attended to the pollingstation (as my wife was voting,) and I was a candidate in the election, as I even spoke with the Electoral Officer. My issue was that I could not be compelled to vote, not even to accept a ballot paper or filling it in!

I discovered that the Electoral Officer now simply has my name crossed off and he puts the ballot papers in the ballot box even so I do not accept them and neither gave them permission to do so and it is in breach of the regulations for a Electoral Officer to do so. it is tampering with an election!
They lost the 5-year long litigation and so seems to have opted to use unlawful methods where they cannot win against me in Court.
That way they avoid taking me to court again, and to loose again.

You were twice wrong then apologise

Communicat, the post started if Australia should be a republic or not. What I have attempted to show is that as much as you have misconceptions likewise so do about all lawyers/judges/politicians and who then knows what the Constitution really is about other then a “constitutionalist” like myself.
The worst thing would be for people to push for a Republic for the wrong reasons and find that if we were, so to say, become a republic nothing changes and the rot continues.
It is for this that it is essential people first address current wrongdoings and then evaluate what really is the difference between a DEMOCRACY running on the proper application of the Constitution and a Republic.

Regretfully, not even the judges of the High Court of Australia seem to understand the true constitutional meaning of “CITIZENSHIP” and so allow deportation of innocent people by this.
Vivian Alvarez Solon being one of them. We gain nothing by allowing ministers to wrongly deport anyone. All I seek is the Rule of Law permissible within the Constitution, however this is not occurring.
Currently, John Howard is about taking over WATER rights, and people are blind to the severe consequences this can have. The Framers of the Constitution refused to allow for this as they debated it at length.
Constitutionally the Commonwealth cannot detain anyone and the ASIO Amendment Act is unconstitutional for that to allow this but again there is a failure of proper training in constitutional matters and lawyers are appointed to the High Court of Australia with next to no competence in constitutional issues.

I am merely, so to say, a messenger to expose it.

Don’t shoot the messenger for this rather direct your attention to the wrongdoers before it is too late!

Kenneth,

perhaps you have learned that as I come across time and again with politicians/lawyers/judges they first argue that I am wrong, but the moment I put to them quotations as to what really is applicable they lack the decency to apologise and refuse to admit being wrong.
Australians are in my view one-of-the-dumbest-people-on-earth where they are pushing the republican issue without having got a clue that it is about. We even had a referendum to ask people to vote for or against it where people were unaware what they were really voting for, and I discovered neither did those people leading the push for a Republic.

Australians don’t understand what their real their nationality is, their national anthem, the national flag or that that they have a fictitious Queen called “Queen-of-Australia, even so there exist no such country as Commonwealth of Australia as neither exist a country called European Union.

For so far they know, so to say, the Governor-General is some Christmas tree decoration rather then being the heads of the Federal Government.
Ample of lawyers claimed that the relied upon what they learned during legal studies by their tutors. So, seemingly to dumb to check out the LEGAL-FACTS from LEGAL-FICTION.

The sad thing is that not are they so dumb to understand what it is about but in this perpetual state of being so to say “Zombies”, they than go along with whatever the tyrannical Federal Government pursues regardless that it is slowly more and more eroding constitutional rights.

A clear example is the deportation of children as “non-citizens” (because their parents were “aliens”) even so the children’s birthrights (other then children born to diplomates) are having every right to be Australians as any of my children born in the Commonwealth of Australia. So, we are unconstitutionally deporting children into a life of hell!
Seems to me before anyone can address the Republic issue they better first learn what their constitution is about and so are not competent to give you any proper information about something they do not understand themselves what it is about.