z3

ISSUE: 20190313- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 35- The criminality of politicians -etc

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

* Gerrit, are you serious?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, if I had my way I would immediately round up all the
politicians and place them in detention with charges such as treason, fraud, etc. Actually I would
do so with most judges.
When you consider the videos such as those listed below then it is clear that many Australians
died for no other reason but because our politicians went along with the lies peddled by others.
Debunking A Century of War Lies corbettreport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw0-ASR4sr8

~234~ Top Times U.S. Lied Into War, Cohen Reveals Truth, Text Books Written By Koch Bros. Redacted Tonight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbnOz9fGQCI

September 11 US Army General Whistle Blower Kate Johnston

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2XV3Edd2dc

And yet again here we are regarding Venezuela and reportedly Australia wanting to be part of the
Oceania/Asian market is the one out to undermine the Venezuela Government.
https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/venezuela-mainstream-media-fake-news-what-the-un-
rapporteur-really-said/
Venezuela: mainstream media fake news – what the UN Rapporteur really
said

If we talk about democratic elections to be held then well as I formally, in litigation since 2001
and also in 2004, challenged the validity of those federal elections, and on 19 July 2006 the
County Court of Australia in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka upheld both appeals in which I on
constitutional and other legal grounds claimed that there were no valid elections held in 2001 and
2004, we clearly have that I could claim to be the Prime Minister ever since and other countries
should join me to recognize me.

* What about the constitution?

**#** Ok constitutionally I was not commissioned by the then Governor-General to be Prime
Minister but surely that is not what our current Federal Government is concerned about
considering that President Madura was validly elected in view of the Venezuela constitutional
provisions but it never the less recognizes the purported President who was the leader of the
opposition, and leader in the parliament, who was to my knowledge not even a candidate in the
presidential elections as he decided to boycott the election.

p1 13-3-2019 © 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
* So you are not really claiming to be Prime Minister but merely seek to expose the stupidity of
the Federal Government in claiming to support someone to be a President of another country
who was not even a candidate in the Venezuela election?
**#** Precisely. Albeit, as I stated we did not have valid federal elections in 2001 and 2004 and
as the court noted on 19 July 2006 the Commonwealth did not present any evidence. As such the
Commonwealth, and neither the States, did oppose my constitutional and other legal based
claims.

Let us consider what Venezuela is about according to reports:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii5MlQgGXyk
An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose Coup
Do note (such as regarding Iraq): Crimes Against Humanity Article 7 Statute of Rome
Also you find that in watching the various videos listed in this documents it is made clear:
MANUFACTURING CONSENT TO INVADE

And consider:

The Coup in Venezuela, Explained Novara Media160,869 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STcepwXxwWA

Video From Venezuelan Supermarket Exposes CNN Lies The Jimmy Dore Show232,939 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny5KFTLyiRw

What You’re Not Being Told About Venezuela Crisis. w/Abby Martin The Jimmy Dore Show350,553 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMeli0BA3UA

The the opposite is:

FULL DOCUMENTARY - Venezuela: State Of Disaster | The Big Story | Real Vision™ Real Vision1,079,473 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qdO2pFoGgw

And then check out:

Jorge Ramos Pushes Propaganda For Venezuela Regime Change The Jimmy Dore Show90,372 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk7gkZiXWbA
which exposes some opposites of the opposite
And
The American Destruction of Venezuela - The Real Story Thom Hartmann Program146,836 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCddGxVEuEY
And
The Coup Has Failed & Now the U.S. Is Looking to Wage War: Venezuelan Foreign Minister Speaks Out Democracy
Now!222,536 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dim9uOsDuI

* Did you watch those videos?

**#** I did indeed and more. And it is like our federal Government is totally incompetent to
manage its own affairs and then toes the line with the USA as to act like a province of the USA.
* Isn’t ANZUS that Australia has to toe the line with the USA?
**#** Not at all. The Commonwealth of Australia can have any treaty but in the end it must
decide for itself if it will participate in any war mongering and this is not for a Prime Minister of
Minister of Defense to decide as to declare war or peace is a prerogative power of the Crown. As
I indicated above the USA has time and time lied as to going to war and Australian Federal
Governments were so to say led by the nose to simply follow as it it is a province of the USA
p2 13-3-2019 © 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
without having any say about it. Well we had far too many Australians dies in needless wars
which were without DECLARATION OF WAR and it is well overdue we charge those
politicians for their war mongering and simply imprison them.
* Don’t you need to have convictions before you can imprison them?
**#** You can put a person in detention without punishment if you suspect them to have
committed a crime.
* Ok what do you consider is a crime or a major crime?
**#** Crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason, fraud, etc. And I suspect most if not all of
the parliamentarians are guilty if not of all then at least one of them. But let us not go into the
needy greedy at this time. Also I would if in power imprison those State Ministers involved in
violating section 92 of the constitution by leasing/selling the ports.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/why-did-northern-territory-sell-darwin-port-to-china-
what-risk/10755720
How and why did the Northern Territory lease the Darwin Port to China, and at what
risk?

*.You would run like a dictator?

**#** Not at all just exercise what is constitutionally appropriate if I were in power. Let us be
clear about it this constitution belongs to the People and not to the politicians and the judges.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that States couldn’t make a profit from harbours as
s92 was specifically to prevent States to do so. When then a State/Territory leases out a harbor
and from this get handsomely paid then this is a profit in violation to s92 of the constitution this
is because the company that paid the monies for the lease will recoup it in harbor charges. Also,
any contract that is made by a government must be published with details as business
confidentiality cannot exist when it relates to anything belonging to the people.

Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408;
4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.

o Contractus ex turpi caus, vel contr bonos mores nullus est. A contract founded on a base
and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null. Hob. 167; Dig. 2, 14, 27, 4.

o Ex malificio non oritur contractus. A contract cannot arise out of an act radically wrong
and illegal. Broom's Max. 851.

There can therefore be no secrecy and any Government of the Day involved in dirty business will
claim it is for the best interest of the general community that matters remain secret, but it
undermines the very constitutional principles of being able to hold a Government of the Day
accountable. Indeed, how can an elector pursue the local Member of Parliament to pursue
something when the Government of the Day conceals relevant details?
As such, any notion of confidentiality of commercial dealing also is utter and sheer nonsense
because any contracts that involved the spending of public monies must be open for scrutiny. If a
business doesn’t like to deal with the Government of the Day because it seeks to avoid scrutiny
then so be it and it stays out of being awarded any contracts but if it desires to gain contracts then
there is no such as commercial confidentiality as that can never exist when it involved public
monies.
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's
Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd, [2012] HCA 7, 8 March 2012, M128/2010, M129/2010, M130/2010,
M131/2010 & M132/2010
p3 13-3-2019 © 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
1. More recently, in Yaxley v Gotts[182] the English Court of Appeal considered the
requirement now made in absolute terms by s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1989 (UK) that a contract for sale of land can only be made in writing
which incorporates all the terms the parties have expressly agreed. It was held that an oral
agreement nevertheless might give rise to a constructive trust because such trusts were
saved by s 2(5) of that Act. But the Court of Appeal saw no scope for the doctrine of
proprietary estoppel. Robert Walker LJ said[183]:
"Parliament's requirement that any contract for the disposition of an interest in land
must be made in a particular documentary form, and will otherwise be void, does not
have such an obviously social aim as statutory provisions relating to contracts by or
with moneylenders, infants, or protected tenants. Nevertheless it can be seen as
embodying Parliament's conclusion, in the general public interest, that the need for
certainty as to the formation of contracts of this type must in general outweigh the
disappointment of those who make informal bargains in ignorance of the statutory
requirement. If an estoppel would have the effect of enforcing a void contract and
subverting Parliament's purpose it may have to yield to the statutory law which
confronts it, except so far as the statute's saving for a constructive trust provides a
means of reconciliation of the apparent conflict."
END QUOTE

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.
Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys
the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts,
documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes
the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be
in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name
of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date
of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it
purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no
duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone,
affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot
operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the
fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
END QUOTE
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)

p4 13-3-2019 © 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
*. You mean any secrecy in itself makes a contract involving a government being unlawful?
**#** That is correct. Parliament cannot assume authority it doesn’t have to sell perhaps for
peanuts the rights to run a public utility, etc. It must account to the People. To hold that a
Governor of the Day somehow can screw the people by leasing out a port for perhaps next to
nothing is an absurdity.
*.Take the Darwin Port and the Victorian Port of Melbourne were they leased out lawfully?
**#** To my knowledge they were not and any contract would be NULL AND VOID!
*.How intelligent do you consider Jullie Bishop as foreign Minister shows to be?
**#** I understand she claimed that she could win the next federal election but let us just check
something. Remember how we had John Howard and his cronies claiming there were
WEAPONS OF MASS DESCRUCTION (WMD) and in the process then proceeded to as I view
it commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason, etc? Well we seem to have a similar
situation with Venezuela. Here we have not just Jullie Bishop but most politicians opposing a
duly elected President after alone of the claims made against the validity of his re-election is that
the ballot boxes were stuffed to manipulate the outcome of the presidential election. Well, as I
understand it in Venezuela there are no election boxes as it is all electronic voting. Oops not
much of intelligence displayed her if we have a foreign minister and the government relying on
President Madura not validly elected where in fact like the WMD is non-existent.
Let us now look at the commonwealth of Australia itself. It is manipulated as unconstitutionally
there is a payment per primary vote. There is compulsory voting. There is a unconstitutional
DEPOSIT required to be paid to stand as a candidate. As such there is no constitutional valid
voting and hence the entire elections are invalid. Now I could claim to be the Prime Minister of
Australia or for that perhaps the President of the Commonwealth of Australia’s regardless of not
being elected by any constitutional valid process as after all this is what our federal government
supports in Venezuela with the opposition leader who was not to my understanding a candidate
in the Venezuela presidential election. Why waste tens of millions of dollars on elections if all
you need to do is to declare yourself President, regardless not having been a candidate in a
presidential election?
*.Wasn’t there a claim that there was a ban on standing as a candidate in the presidential
election?
**#** Actually the opposition leader boycotted then presidential election but 2 other candidates
did stand. As such it was not a ban but rather a deliberate refusal to participate. That is where I
refuse to be a candidate in an election because of it being unconstitutional, this does not then
make me to be the Prime Minister or even a President.
*.Something else, what is your view about the banning of Opposition leader Le Pen in France by
the banks where they are canceling her bank accounts?
**#** This underlines the dangers of not using cash transfers of monies. One has to ask why is
the Federal Government meddling in Venezuela internal issues like mad men when they should
pursue legislation that banks cannot deny any person to be a customer based upon their political
beliefs. Here we have a Federal Parliament ignorant to ensure legislation is in place to avoid this
to happen in Australia. Likewise where is the legislation to prevent energy companies to rip of
customers by up to 45% of claimed discounts if you pay on time. This is eye gauging big time.
Our constitution provides the embedded legal principle that both parties are to be heard before a
judicial decision can be made. Now when a electricity/gas supplier increases the actual charges

p5 13-3-2019 © 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
by up to 45 or so percentage, as such highly inflated then why didn’t the Federal Parliament
legislate against this?
*.Cant they avoid this by allowing automatic deductions?
**#** Well I stopped all automatic deductions because when a company mistakenly charges you
say $231,000,000.00 instead of $231.00 then you have to pay the bank charges, this is because
you authorized the company to do say, irrespective they made an error. Also, companies are
charging people long dead because no one is there to stop the automatic deductions. Technically
the person granting the right to automatic deductions cannot cancel, as I discovered when trying
to cancel it, but can only request the company that was granted automatic deducting charges to
do so. Hence, if that company refuses to cancel the automatic deductions then no matter if the
person is dead for decades the company can continue to charge whatever. Now when you got a
private health insurance company charging this for decades after the insured is long dead you
might just realise how absurd this is.
*.Any comments about the Federal Government signing the fast train deal in Melbourne to the
airport?
**#** In my view this is unconstitutional.
*.Why is that?
**#** We have an Section 101 Inter-State Commission provision in the constitution and it can
only within Trade and commerce to allocate monies for this project. So instead of what I view
warmongering into Venezuela political affairs we should have the Federal Government first
addressing our own internal affairs.
*. Are you contemplating to vote in the coming federal election?
**#** I am not and I might just declare to be the elected Prime Minister of the Commonwealth
of Australia on that the federal election is held in an unconstitutional manner and so is invalid.
*.Moment, didn’t you write in the past we do not elect a Prime Minister or for that any Minister?
**#** Correct. We do not have such an electoral system we only elected representatives to the
parliament and have no say who shall or shall not be in the Government but why worry about
such details when after all if it is good for the Goose it is good for the Gander to claim ridiculous
and outrageous results. As such if the Federal Government supports that President Madura was
not validly elected and the non-candidate opposition leader who was the leader in the Parliament
is recognized as the elected President then well it cannot argue against me not being the elected
president/prime minister.
* I understand Peter Cosgrove is having his term as Governor-General extended by a few
months.
**#** If I was in power I would have him for a long extended period in prison regarding mass
murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason and a lot more. After all he invaded Iraq
unconstitutionally, but that is something I will not now go into further details.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p6 13-3-2019 © 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