Anda di halaman 1dari 9

ISSUE: 20180404- Re: Why a Royal Commission into the Iraq invasion is badly overdue - Re Skripal, etc

& the constitution

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

We appear in my view to be on the brink of a war and one that will likely have a considerable
impact upon the Commonwealth of Australia. Hence I view that the best thing to do is to have an
immediate ROYAL COMMISSION about the Invasion and what went wrong, etc, so on.
It appears to be clear to me that we seem to have some imbeciles in the government who are
recklessly engaging in warmongering, and likely so because with they so to say got away with
mass-murder, etc, they think they can repeat the same again.
Likewise the (un)intelligent services having in my view aided and abetted in a conspiracy to
justify an they are morally and intelligent bankrupt and cannot be relied upon.
With the current Skriptal case we had Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull with a side kick
(previously involved with the unconstitutional armed invasion into Iraq) Julie Bishop yet again
embarking upon a warmongering path that not only can place our service men and women but
also ordinary citizens in peril of an armed attack.
https://russia-insider.com/en/russia-novichok-hysteria-proves-politicians-and-media-havent-learned-lessons-
iraq/ri22967?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=823926b932&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
Russia ‘Novichok’ Hysteria Proves Politicians and Media Haven’t
Learned the Lessons of Iraq
https://russia-insider.com/en/german-politicians-speak-out-against-us-led-campaign-against-russia/ri22931
German Politicians Speak out Against US-led Campaign Against Russia
In my view URGENT ROYAL COMMISSION ought to investigate matters regarding so as to
any recommendations as to any charges against those who were authorising and/or otherwise
involved in the can be made regarding the unconstitutional armed invasion in and Australians,
including the terrorism harm upon Australian soil.
Below I will therefore quote some details of my WRITTEN SUBMISSION in the ADDRESS
TO THE COURT.
It should be understood that where a party or parties are provided with an opportunity to place
their matters before the court, including to challenge an opponents in whole or part claims but
decide for whatever reason(s) not to do so then all submissions that are and remain unchallenged
are to be taken as acknowledged and accepted/confirmed by the parties who didn’t challenge the
submissions. This in particular where none of the opposing parties in any shape or form
challenged/opposed any part of my submissions. This, even so they had been provided well
before the hearing with the WRITTEN SUBMISSION in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
None of the opponent pursued any appeal against the court’s decision and considering that now a
time of about 12 years has passed then any appeal time is well and truly gone.
It is a principle of law that when a person legally object to the validity of an act or other matter
such as the holding of a Federal election then the Act or election is and remains ULTRA VIRES
unless and until, if ever at all, the court decides it to be INTRA VIRES.
p1 4-4-2018 © 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
As shown I challenged the validity of the 2001 and 2004 Federal elections and at no time did the
prosecutor in any way prove the validity of the Federal elections out of which the purported
charges of FAILING TO VOTE arose.
The Court noted in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka in its 2006 orders:
‘No evidence led by the Commonwealth D.P.P.’
I in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka, represented myself, in litigation of FAILING TO VOTE lasting
about 5 years, and in which I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (and so
all states also). I had filed and served in 2002 (upon all Attorney-Generals) a Section 78B
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and as such it is beyond doubt that this related
to constitutional issues. Part 1 was 149 pages, Part 2 was 134 pages and Part 3 was 126 pages,
making it a total of 409 pages. Will quote certain parts of the WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of
the ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
However the entire WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT can be
located in the following book published in 2007
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1

QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
As a matter of fact, I understand it was TREACHERY within section 24AA of the Crimes
Act (Cth) for the Prime minister and others to authorise a war against “friendly” nations, as
they were in view they had not actually attacked us and neither had the governor-General
issued a Declaration of War to placed them to be enemies.
END QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

While one cannot take a politician to court for how he voted on a Bill in the Parliament one can
however take a politician to court for acting or failing to act as a Minister and/or acting beyond
the powers of a Minister, etc.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
Obviously, where a person is acting as a government official but is found not to be so (such Mr
Barnaby Joyce at the time) the provisions of Section 64 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) allows a person to be a Minister for up to 3 months without being a
Member of Parliament. That period of time of 3 months therefore cannot be held against him.
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
(Exercising Federal Jurisdiction)
QUOTE Part 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
The Defendant submits, that even so he does not require to state his religion and neither which part of his
religion is relevant for a religious objection as it can be a secular objection, he has religious objections and one is
that “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” where Mr. John Howard unconstitutionally authorised the murderous
invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq. How on earth could anyone expect me to vote by preference voting for what
I consider a mass murderer and one who committed treachery, treason, sedition and committed crimes against
humanity, and by this voting for anyone who supported the war, such as members of his political party.
My right to abstain from voting could not be denied, neither be punished.
END QUOTE Part 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
p2 4-4-2018 © 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
QUOTE Part 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No.
76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.
Pp. 361-367.
And;
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml

Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization


Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a
recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not
require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
exemption to be challenged.
And
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do
not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are
betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
END QUOTE Part 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE Part 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
U.S. Supreme Court
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)
398 U.S. 333
WELSH v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 76.
Argued January 20, 1970
Decided June 15, 1970
Petitioner was convicted of refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces despite his claim for
conscientious objector status under 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. That provision
exempts from military service persons who by reason of "religious training and belief" are conscientiously
opposed to war in any form, that term being defined in the Act as "belief in a relation to a supreme Being
involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation" but not including "essentially political,
sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal code." In his exemption application petitioner stated
that he could not affirm or deny belief in a "Supreme Being" and struck the words "my religious training and"
from the form. He affirmed that he held deep conscientious scruples against participating in wars where people
were killed. The Court of Appeals, while noting that petitioner's "beliefs are held with the strength of more
traditional religious convictions," concluded that those beliefs were not sufficiently "religious" to meet the terms
of 6 (j), and affirmed the conviction. Petitioner contends that the Act violates the First Amendment prohibition of
p3 4-4-2018 © 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
establishment of religion and that his conviction should be set aside on the basis of United States v. Seeger, 380
U.S. 163 , which held that the test of religious belief under 6 (j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief
occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the
exemption. Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 335-367.
404 F.2d 1078, reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, concluded that:
This case is controlled by United States v. Seeger, supra, to which it is factually similar. Under Seeger, 6 (j)
is not limited to those whose opposition to war is prompted by orthodox or parochial religious beliefs. A
registrant's conscientious objection to all war is "religious" within the meaning of 6 (j) if this [398 U.S. 333,
334] opposition stems from the registrant's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and
wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions. In view of the broad
scope of the word "religious," a registrant's characterization of his beliefs as "nonreligious" is not a reliable
guide to those administering the exemption. Pp. 335-344.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concluded that:
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.
Pp. 361-367.

Again
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp.
361-367.
END QUOTE Part 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE Part 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) offend Section 116 if
the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.

Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate that while using the
“religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not
consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in
fact it also includes any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person
uses as grounds for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of
Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious objections”.
Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of “religious objection” have a
valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her religion, and neither
which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the mere claim itself is sufficient to
p4 4-4-2018 © 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
constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording
“religious objection” is to be taken as “objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in
that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA


END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
END QUOTE Part 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
If the purported federal election in 2001 was without legal force, then not as single Member of Parliament then
could have been elected in regard of those purported elections held on 10 November 2001. meaning also that
there was neither a Prime Minister to advise the Governor-General for the 2004 federal election. Hence, no
constitutional valid election was then held either for this and other reasons set out above.

The problem the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is facing is that since 4-12-2002 I clearly
opposed the validity of the purported 2001 election and as such it remains ULTRA VIRES where the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions failed to obtain a judgment otherwise proving it was
constitutionally valid. The refusal by the Magistrate to determine the validity on the basis that there was no
judicial power clearly cannot be accepted.
This is a criminal case instituted by the Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions and as such by this has
implied given the authority to the Courts to deal with the
validity of the purported elections.
With the 2004 purported Federal election the added issue is also that no one in his right mind can demand or
otherwise force me to vote for what I consider a war criminal, being Mr John Howard, likewise so for any of his
political allies.
The position of “Prime Minister” does not exist in the written Constitution. However, as a “constitutionalist” I
am well aware that the framers of the Constitution intended there be a Prime Minister, albeit with limited
powers. As they made clear the power to declare War or Peace rest with the Monarch and so by the Governor-
General and this was only to be acted upon by a Declaration of War if it involved going to war. Hence, the armed
invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq was unconstitutional as no DECLARATION OF WAR was ever publicised
in the Gazette. As a matter of fact, I understand it was TREACHERY within section 24AA of the Crimes Act
(Cth) for the Prime minister and others to authorise a war against “friendly” nations, as they were in view they
had not actually attacked us and neither had the governor-General issued a Declaration of War to placed them to
be enemies.
END QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
On personal and religious grounds also I would never vote in any election that involves people who are
warmongering and send troops out to in effect murder children in their beds by an armed invasion, dropping
bombs in discriminatory on their residence, merely for political gains, such as was occurring in Iraq. In
particularly not where I have extensively campaigned against the unconstitutional and illegal conduct of such
armed invasion involving Australian troops.
END QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
In my view, any judicial officer who were to contemplate let alone convict me would act in derelict of his duty,
and contrary to the very intentions of the Framers of the Constitution who made clear that they wanted a
structure of peace and indeed expressed this in Section 51 by using the wording;
“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good
government of the Commonwealth with respect to;”

for the record, I am the only person who formally applied to the High Court of Australia to issues within Section
75(v) a Prohibition and mandamus against various Ministers , such as in regard of what I hold is the
unconstitutional detention and/or deportation of refuges and children born to them who are by birth Australian
born (British nationals) and wrongly deported as “Stateless”, the issue of “citizenship” and such as the issue of
the unconstitutional deployment of troops for an armed invasion into Iraq. On 11 February 2003 the Registrar

p5 4-4-2018 © 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
refused to accept the application on the basis that it was not according to the Rules of the Court and
recommended certain changes to be made, which I complied with and on 18 February 2003 presented the
amended applications as per her directions. Hayes J then the next day on 19 February 2003 refused to accept the
application for filing and as I understand it claiming the application was not according to the Rules of the Court,
even so it was prepared as directed by the Registrar’s format. Gummow J upheld the ruling of Haynes J
subsequently.
On 18 March 2003 I then lodged in the High Court of Australia a new application that basically pursued those
three above issues, and left off other applications, albeit now supported by about 800 pages of supportive
documentation addressed in the various points and backed up by relevant Authorities and Hansard quotations.
Haynes J on 19 March 2003 (The day the armed invasion commenced into the sovereign nation Iraq) again
refused the application to be accepted for filing, and Gummow J later upheld this decision also. Yet, I understand
Kirby J then, so to say, put a call out to lawyers that they should seek to challenge the validity of the
“citizenship” legislation.
Still, the fact that I opposed the unconstitutional armed invasion into a sovereign nation (Iraq) is therefore on
Court file. I can do no more but to lodge applications and if any Court refuses to hear and determine applications
upon their merits then that is something that is beyond my powers to overrule, other then that I can expose this.
Constitutionally however, there is no power for the High Court of Australia to refuse to hear and determine upon
its merits any application involving the interpretation of the Constitution as the Framers made clear that an
application “must be heard”.
END QUOTE Part 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

For the record on 19 March 2003 the Court did not deal with the 18 March 2003
application supported with 800 page Affidavit, but in fact dealt also with the 18 February
2003 application. Hence, the 18 March 2003 application remains on foot, after more than
15 years. By this the objection to the validity of the purported Australian Citizenship Act
1948 (as a constitutional issues) remains to be on foot also!
QUOTE Part 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
For example, in regard of the 2004 purported federal election, standing as a candidate, I was known to refuse to
indicate a preference vote as I opposed the murderous unconstitutional invasion into the sovereign nations
Afghanistan and Iraq and did not wish to be seen to support this by giving preference vote indications which may
be seen that somehow I supported this humanitarian disaster and warmongering. Hence, it was therefore critical
to the Prosecutors case if perhaps the staff member sitting at the table when my wife and I attended at the polling
station may have been aware or have been made aware that I opposed any kind of involvement as to the
murderous invasions and as such was not issued any ballot papers on that basis.
I was well aware during the proceedings that it didn’t matter for me to give whatever evidence as ultimately
having made a NO CASE TO ANSWER the magistrate was bound by this to reconsider then if in light of the
subsequent evidence his earlier ruling to dismiss my submission of NO CASE TO ANSWER was found to be
proven where I presented a reasonable excuse that I had attended to the polling station and as such it was not for
the Court to try to score some conviction where the Prosecutor himself had elected not to call witnesses who
could have clarified what occurred that day.
Again, it was not for the magistrate to assume what may have occurred that day where the Prosecutor himself
refused to call witnesses whom could have elaborated on what had occurred on that day! The Defendant was
denied the option to cross witnesses in that regard as there were none who could have shed light on this and as
such the Prosecutor taking the gamble to prevent the defendant to question any staff of the Australian Electoral
Commission by this had overplayed his hand, so to say.

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates


Mr. DEAKIN:
It appears to me that the representatives of the less populous States decline to distinguish sufficiently between
the money powers and the general powers to be conferred by a Constitution. Now the distinction is no mere
fantasy. It should be recognised in the forefront of the Constitution. In the exercise of both powers there are
instances in which it is possible that State interests may be put in jeopardy. State rights cannot be put in. such
jeopardy; they are enshrined and preserved under the Constitution and protected by the courts to be
established under that Constitution.

It must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution themselves relied upon certain principles having been
embedded in the Constitution, and unless one is a “constitutionalist” as I am by self education, no one really
should attempt to use constitutional provisions an limitations or any legislation within that unless it has been
checked of its constitutional correctness.

p6 4-4-2018 © 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
"A right is not what someone gives you;
it's what no one can take from you."
HYPERLINK "http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/ramsey+clark" Ramsey Clark
U. S. Attorney General New York Times, 2 October 1977

The right to vote exist and cannot be made subject to curtailments. Only if a person exercise a right to vote can
appropriate legal provisions regarding the exercise of such right be invoked, if they are constitutionally valid,
that is.
For example, a person whom obtains a divers licence and is entitled to drive has the right to exercise this but
cannot be made obligated to do so. It is only when exercising this right to drive a motor vehicle that then his
duties to conform with road rules apply in that regard.

Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates;


Sir GEORGE TURNER:
I would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to
exercise their franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.

The right to vote cannot be enforced if the person holding this right desires not at that time to exercise that right.
END QUOTE Part 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE Part 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630
This ADDRESS OF THE COURT could not possibly detail all matters in full detail, and is neither intended to
do so, as it would take thousands of pages to do so, but already ought to give ample of indications that the
purported elections were never constitutionally and legally valid.
Thereby, I am aggrieved also that I am, as like other Australians, robbed of having a duly elected government,
both in 2001 and in 2004.
We may never have had the murderous armed invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq, had an election in 2001
been rescheduled to be held according to constitutional and other relevant legal provisions as this may have
resulted to a different political party being in power who would not have been, so to say been warmongering.
Neither would likely many unconstitutional legislative provisions have been enacted and as such the conduct of
the Australian Electoral Commission, so its lawyers, to prevent a valid election to be held is a very serious matter
then cannot and neither must be ignored.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has placed before the Court matters as to seemingly enforce
Commonwealth law, and so this court then is placed in a position to address matters in a appropriate judicial
manner, even so this might not particularly be what the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had
anticipated, or had in mind.

The fact that the Printer had on some of the delivery documents recorded that the despatch of the Special Gazette
was on 9 October 2001, even so the very document shows to have been printed on 10 October 2001 also may
indicate that on the face of the evidence already presented during past proceedings there is justified concern that
something serious untowards in elections occurred. Only a unbias proper investigation may establish the truth of
matters.
END QUOTE Part 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT T01567737 & Q10897630

As none of the above written submissions where in any manner challenged by the opposing
parties then this means that they were accepted as being true and correct.
This means that Mr John Howard while commissioned after the 2001 and later 2004 federal
election to be Prime Minister only was for a maximum of 3 months and thereafter no longer was
a Prime Minister.
Likewise, any other person not validly elected at the time(s) was merely where commissioned as
a Minister lost their constitutional legal status after 3 months!
It also means that all those persons who were not validly elected were not entitled to the
allowance ordinary provided to validly elected Members of Parliament. Those not validly elected
parading as Ministers therefore then were violating legal provisions that makes it a criminal
offence to purport to be a Commonwealth official.
It must be clear that at the time of the Iraq invasion we did not have a validly commissioned
Prime Minister nor any other Minister who was not validly elected.
It means that all those persons were not in any legal position when authorising the
unconstitutional murderous invasion into Iraq.
.

p7 4-4-2018 © 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
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/cosgrove-admits-mistakes-in-iraq-war/4581120

Cosgrove admits mistakes made in Iraq war


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/iraq-war-spin-bush-david-corn

QUOTE 16-7-2002 CORRESPONDENCE


Lt Gen Peter Cosgrove 16-7-2002
R1-5-B CDF Suit
Department of Defence
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone; 02 626 52976
Fax; 02 626 51228 Re; FULL INVESTIGATION
COURT MARTIAL?
Sir,
END QUOTE 16-7-2002 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 16-7-2002 CORRESPONDENCE


Well, I found that the Proclamation of the Prorogue of the Parliament, and the Dissolution of the House of
Representatives, wasn’t at all published on 8 October 2001, but first in Canberra on 9 October 2001, and
thereafter in the various States and Territories. Meaning, that the writs issued, on 8 October 2001 for the
House of Representatives, were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. After all, the writs can’t be issued prior to the
actual publication of the Proclamation of the Dissolution of the House of Representatives.
I dig more, and find, that it is a habit not to issue Special Gazette’s on their own in many cases, and often, if it
does publish anywhere, later by up to a massive 19 days or more!
Meaning, that in true legal application hundreds, if not thousands of laws, legal notices, etc published too late
are all defective and so NULL AND VOID.
END QUOTE 16-7-2002 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 16-7-2002 CORRESPONDENCE


Great thing, those transcripts of the debates. I view, it ought to be compulsory reading for all members of
the Defence Force, all members of the legal profession, certainly for judges, and all Parliamentarians. We
might even then get a true DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM!

Didn’t we have this fellow running around in the USA, declaring that Australia would joint them in the war
against terrorism? Again, we ought to get him to read the transcripts of what the framers really intended!

Gosh, the Defence Force might even become aware, that not the Prime Minister, but the Governor-General
(for the Monarch) can only declare war! And, that we don’t make declarations from the steps of Parliament
House, as was done on 11 November 1975, or while visiting the USA, but it is required to be done by the
actual publication of the Proclamation of Declaration of War!
So, now we have the Defence Force, invading some sovereign country, upon the political motivated demands
of a Government of the Day, and I wonder upon legal basis?

No matter what one might think about Afghanistan, it was a foreign power, a sovereign nation, in which I
view, the Defence Force had no business to go there, and be involved perhaps with the deaths of many
innocent civilians, without there being a formal Declaration of War being Gazetted!

If Australia can do so to another sovereign nation, then why shouldn’t another nation do the same to
Australia? Have we become some war mongering nation, that the Defence Force is willing to go anywhere,
regardless of what is constitutional/legally just and proper?

So, now we are having the Defence Force involved in a “War against Terrorism”? Well, who is the terrorist
invading another sovereign country without a formal Declaration of War actually published in the Gazette?
I think, we ought to have our own War Tribunal, and deal with those, who have been part of an invasion
force, without any proper and actual published Declaration of War!

The Defence Force isn’t there to nilly willy do whatever a Government of the Day demands! The Defence
Force, in my view, must always be guarded that it acts in accordance to international and Australian laws, and
if there is a conflict, then it simply REFUSES to act contrary to legal provisions! No Government of the Day
has the power to force a Defence Force to act unlawful! If the Government of the Day pursues the Defence
Force to act in a manner which is unlawful, then, where it is within the competence of the parliament, it must
p8 4-4-2018 © 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
have laws first amended by the Parliament, so that the Defence Force can proceed but remains to act
according to law!
END QUOTE 16-7-2002 CORRESPONDENCE

It must be clear that the then General Cosgrove was made well aware by my 16-7-2002
correspondence that he needed the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette a
DECLARATION OF WAR naming Iraq. Such DECLARATION OF WAR to my understanding
was never published. In my view the Nürnberg Trials made clear that following orders is no
excuse to committing any heinous crimes.
In my view the then General Cosgrove was appointed Governor-General as to silence him about
Iraq. Just that I view there is a conflict of interest with the now Governor-General Cosgrove and
he should stand aside and allow a Governor acting as Governor-General to authorise a ROYAL
COMMISSION which also investigate the then conduct of General Peter Cosgrove and other
military leaders as well as all those who were in government at the time or purported to be so and
those who were the opposition or purporting to be the opposition.
In my view Mr John Howard and his fellow purported Members of Government are mass-
murderers, committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason, bombed Iraq back into the
Stone Age, etc, and should be standing trial. None of them should be allowed to be or remain to
be a Minister in any position or occupy any political or other government position unless and
until they are, if at all, cleared of any involvement in criminal conduct.
Those who are convicted I view should be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour and all
their worldly possessions to be confiscated.
Only when we deal with warmongering persons severely may we possibly avoid a repeat of
the same.
Currently I view Julie Bishop should stand aside as a Minister for Foreign Affairs as I view she
is compromised by her past involvement in the unconstitutional Iraq murderous invasion and her
conduct in regard of the Skripal case I find horrifying at the very least. I my view Julie Bishop is
unreliable because of her past involvement in the lies and deception regarding Iraq, and I view is
a danger to our national security. Also Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, albeit not originally, at
least to my knowledge, involved in the Iraq invasion nevertheless I view has demonstrated with
the Skripal case to act in blatant violation of common sense and national security and should
stand aside. We need currently people to govern whose reputation/conduct is beyond question
and who are willing to act within the provisions of ‘peace, order and good government’ and
not despite of this.
Unlike the Russian Federation is not one to fool about with as we could be easily be reached long
range missiles and then we may be no more. Only holding an investigation with a ROYAL
COMMISSION can we a deal with the warmongers, who are leaches of society, with little or no
accountability as to their evil deeds
In my view any Member of Parliament who fails to support my call/demand for a ROYAL
COMMISSION is no better than those who committed the evil deeds.
We did have a ROYAL COMMISSION regarding matters with far less deaths involved and
here we had many service man and women ending up crippled and dead and somehow a blatant
disregard for a ROYAL COMMISSION because it is directed against politicians themselves.
Let the truth be known and this long overdue ROYAL COMMISSION finally investigate
matters, and in the meantime avoid the Skripal case to be a second WMD hoax perpetrated upon
the general public with serious consequences.
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!)
p9 4-4-2018 © 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