1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Clive Palmer & Jacqui Lambie

Cc:

10

15

23-12-2014

Admin@PalmerUnited.com & senator.ketter@aph.gov.au

Mr Tony Abbott PM
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Senator Julie Bishop senator.bishop@aph.gov.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Jessdica Marszalek Jessica.marszalek@news.com.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator Mine
senator.milne@aph.gov.au
Senate president Stephen Parry senator.parry@aph.gov.au
House of Representative Speaker Bronwyn Bishop Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Ken Lay Chief Commissioner, Victorian Police
C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au

20
20141223G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer & Jacqui Lambie
Arab BLACKSHIRTS-JIHAD etc

25

30

35

40

45

Clive and Jacqui,

you may recall my 4-11-2014 correspondence (quoted below) of which a copy
was at the time forwarded to others including Mr Tony Abbott, but it appears to me sheer
incompetence remains to be the main issue.
.
The mere fact that when a person phones the ASIO listed number and then gets a telephonist of
the Attorney-Generals Department who them comment having to look for someone who can
take the call underlines the gross incompetence existing. Surely a hotline ought to be a direct
line to a person who is trained to handle reports, etc?
We are burdened with numerous laws, and liberty and other freedoms are but by bit taken from
us and yet in the end it proved with the Sydney Lindt caf that it is not further laws we need but
rather competence by those who are paid to do a job.
Here we has a person using the name Monis and his female partner who openly put up videos,
etc, about what they were on ab out, going about the streets making clear their intentions,
involved in poison pen writings and a host of more issues and then the security organisations
dont b other to attend to this all. As I previously expressed ASIO was set up by Robert Menzies
and used as a political tool so he could stay in power and mothering to do with being a security
entity for the sake of all Australians.
In my view those in the top management of security officers should all be removed from their
jobs for gross and total incompetence, as to leave them there is to ignore the terrible
consequences of their gross incompetence.
One can cause another avalanche of laws to be put onto citizens but all will be of no avail unless
you deal with the gross incompetence of what has eventuated so far.
p1
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2
.
View people could ever have been so obvious and yet nothing was done to protect the
community. It was about the rights of the accused and so let them do what they want, and then if
it the end up involved in murder, etc, then use this to justify (so it seems) to invoke further
legislation, rather than it happening in the first place.
Changing positions of Members of Parliament isnt going to alter any incompetence of proper
management and the responsible Minister seems to not be held accountable/responsible at all.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Leadership is a quality that doesnt come about by creating a further avalanche of legislation
but in dealing with matters appropriately. Ask yourself, what did Mr Tony Abbott do with my 411-2014 correspondence to ensure that a hotline/direct line is actually appropriately managed?
Likely nothing. And this is why we lack competent leadership and seek to cover up this issue by
so to say a shuffling of positions. So, this is an acknowledgement that he had it wrong when he
first place d certain people in Ministerial positions. It is like a conduct of musical chairs on the
sinking Titanic.
While we cannot blame Muslims in general because of what Monis did nevertheless we must
also not ignore his association with Islam. Hence, we must have laws that anyone who preaches
military like conduct in a religious place then that religious place must be closed down. As such
those who are in charge of a religious place have the option to avoid any kind of military like
preaching (such as jihad) or face the building to be closed permanently. Such kind of legislation
wouldnt be a breach of s116 of the constitution and not ULTRA VIRES because it doesnt
interfere with any religious beliefs but rather seeks to prevent the usage of religious
buildings/places for non-religious purposes such as military kind of conduct to seek to conscript
or otherwise people for terrorism/jihad, etc.
Once you start closing down properties purportedly used for religious purposes but actually used
also or in the alternative for military kind of conduct then those who own/are running those
religious properties will quick smart act to remove or have removed anyone they deem is in
violation of religious conduct.
In my view the States should implement a system that every person who claims to have a certain
religious position, must be registered with the relevant state in which the person pursues to
preach a religion. As such the States can demand they have a certain qualification to show they
are genuine trained in religious matters.
The Framers of the Constitution specifically left it to the states to determine religious matters.
.
As for religious organisations having a tax exemption in the Commonwealth for being a religious
organisation in my view is in fact unconstitutional. Firstly the states may or may not desire to
provide for not-for-profit (non profit) organisation but as the Framers of the constitution made
clear that the States cannot interfere with the powers of the Common wealth to collect duties,
taxes, etc.
As such, the Commonwealth cannot rely upon what a state may hold as an exemption and cannot
itself allow for religious exemptions or for tax deductions for donations to religious bodies.
As the Welsh case (WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)) made clear:
.
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
QUOTE
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
p2
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

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.
END QUOTE

Therefore, unless the Commonwealth allows tax exemption of every secular person/entity it
cannot allow for religious entities to be tax exempted.
What the Commonwealth is doing is to burden secular persons to make up for the taxation
religious entities are not paying and so force secular persons to fund religious entities. I view a
violation of s116 of the constitution.
Likewise, it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to fund all students towards their secular
school books and other cost but as long as none of the funding is syphoned of for religious
matters. As such, if a religious education facility receives funding it must use it only for one
purpose and that is for secular teaching cost.
Obviously there is also the problem that a criminal alien can use a false or alternative identity
and then avoid being ousted as a criminal to prevent being denied residence/visa in the
commonwealth of Australia. We had various cases where criminals entered under falsehood
Australia and then by getting a woman pregnant was using this to prevent deportation. Hence,
what is needed is legislation that where a person has been found to have make a false application
and/or concealed important information from an application then the Minister is to decide if the
person is to be deported and without review. As such no tribunal or court can overturn the
Ministers executive decision as the application itself must be deemed null and void from onset.
To direct legislation against criminals and those who facilitate the conduct of criminals is what
serves more the general community then to dump an avalanche of laws on the general
community which with the Lindt Caf incident proved had not the slightest value.
As I exposed in previous correspondence the High Court of Australia notion that somehow it
discovered in 1989 that there was an implied freedom of political communication In the
Lange case is sheer and utter nonsense as it all along existed when the Framers of the
Constitution debated the creation of the constitution such as political liberty. Clearly we do
not have properly trained judges in the High Court of Australia, that is in constitutional issues,
and Sue v Hill, Mabo, Sykes v Cleary, Bjelke Peterson case (Re Racial Discrimination Act) and
Tasmania Dam cases are just some of them and obviously the WorkChoises decision cannot be
overlooked.
Political liberty exist for so far it is not in violation with laws including common law. As such
where a person claims to make a political statement but really as a cover for criminal conduct
then one has to look at the real main issue that is pursued. We cannot have that any person can
claim to be exercising political liberty and by this deny others their constitutional or other
legal rights.
While statements made within a Parliament or made in any parliamentarian inquiry are ordinary
exempted from libel laws, exercising political liberty outside the Parliament cannot protect a
person from libel laws if it is deemed to be libel what the person stated.
A person may exercise political liberty to protest in regard of a certain government action but
cannot protect the person if by the exercise of the political liberty the person caused physical or
p3
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

4
other harm to another person that was deemed to be outside the ambit of exercising political
liberty.
In Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 &
S179/2012, I hold the High Court of Australia overstepped the judicial boundary by seeking to
justify a certain level of harm being inflicted to another person. After all it should make no
difference if the harm is physical or otherwise as one can drive a person to suicide, etc, by mere
words and as such one must consider each incident upon the circumstances existing at the time of
the incident.
Because the Commonwealth of Australia has a unique constitutional system one must not
introduce foreign Authorities which may be appropriate within the constitutional context of the
foreign jurisdiction but not within the constitutional context of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Yet it appears to me that the High Court of Australia in Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The
Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012 was ignoring this.
What we need is competent leadership and not the changing of the guard when the Titanic is
sinking as this isnt going to achieve nothing. If a person like Monis can have a reign for some
estimated 16 years of deceit and yet security agencies are ignoring him big time then I view those
in charge need to be removed from their positions, as failing to do so means they can be cosy to
ignore the same kind of situation again as their jobs are secure as long as they are mates with
certain politicians.
We have 2 people who were murdered because of the failure by security agencies to act
appropriately. There can be no excuse and it underlines none of the legislation enacted since
2001 made any difference to prevent it. While now it can be argued that there is a lot more
chatter on the internet since the Lindt Caf incident that is very obvious after the event. It
doesnt mean that there are more concerning chatter existing, but the security agencies would
like to deceive us all as if it is, after all they did so with the WMD (Weapons of Mass
Destruction).
.
I will now quote my 4-11-2014 correspondence:
QUOTE 4-11-2014 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Clive Palmer & Jacqui Lambie

35

Cc:

40

45

50

4-11-2014

Admin@PalmerUnited.com & senator.ketter@aph.gov.au

Mr Tony Abbott PM
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Senator Julie Bishop senator.bishop@aph.gov.au
Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Jessdica Marszalek Jessica.marszalek@news.com.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator Mine
senator.milne@aph.gov.au
Senate president Stephen Parry senator.parry@aph.gov.au
House of Representative Speaker Bronwyn Bishop Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Ken Lay Chief Commissioner, Victorian Police
C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au
20141103G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer & Jacqui Lambie
Arab BLACKSHIRTS-JIHAD etc

55

Clive and Jacqui,

p4
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5
as I stated in my 220102014 correspondence:

10

QUOTE
As a Professional Advocate and CONSTITUTIONALIST I represented many parties, including lawyers, in
legal proceedings of which some prescribed to the catholic faith, others were Jews, Protestant, Muslims and
whatever else including those who didnt prescribe to any particular religious faith/cult. To me it never was
an issue whatever their faith or none of it because to me they all were humans.
END QUOTE

I use to assist many with a Special Lifeline Service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL, also in litigation. As such I was dealing with the Victorian BLACKSHIRTS
under leadership of Mr John Murray Abbott. And subsequently published a book about this:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.

(ISBN 0-9580569-4-3 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6

On Monday 3 November 2014 I received an email of a person I assisted long before I retired
seeking my assistance regarding the BLACKSHIRTS. I called the person and asked him what his
email was about, and was informed ab out the BLACKSHIRTS, I commented that they no longer
(at least to my understanding) operated, when I was given the understanding that there is an
Arab BLACKSHIRT organisation that actually has BLACKSHIRTS uniforms which is
collecting monies for Islamic fundamentalist issues. By this I understood they are raising monies
for Jihad, as well as getting Australians to join for Jihad., etc.
I indicated to the person that he would do better to contact the authorities upon which I
understood he didnt know how to do. He indicated that he would appreciate if I assisted him
with this.
I called the listed ASIO number of Victoria, and had some telephonist on the line who asked me
what in regard it was I called. I indicated possible terrorism. I got the response what she would
have to find out who possible could deal with this.
Hold on, we have all kind of legislation put through the Parliament to give ASIO powers and the
telephonist (turns out to be of the Attorney Generals Department (not ASIO this even so the
number is listed for ASIO) now hasnt got as clue who to con next to!
Anyhow, after several minutes I got AARON on the line. I explained matters but it seems he is of
the Attorney Generals Department and not ASIO and gave r me the understanding he would
have to find someone who can deal with the matter.
Excused me, am I dealing with a bunch of idiots or with ASIO. Oops, it seem to be the same.
.
I provided AARON with the details of the person having requested my assistance, his phone
number, address, my phone number, etc. Still AARON desired to so to say milk me for in
formation instead of having the call him complainant contacted.
Anyhow I subsequently contacted the complainant and advised him I had contacted ASIO
about the matter, and given his details. He made known to forward me an email with relevant
details.
Subsequently I received the email which also had an alleged link in it to the money raising web
address. When however I clicked on it I had an instant other window opening with another copy
of the email in which I had the link. Subsequently I discovered I had received an email in Arabic
both in the email address I had received the email containing the link but more over also to
another email address I had previously forwarded an email CC to.
Great, now the Arab BLACKSHIRTS had a copy of this email as well as copies of all email
addresses instantly while well the Attorney General might spend the next 10 years or so trying to
work out who in ASIO is dealing with matters.
p5
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6
Because Yahoo now banks up any emails with the same heading it means that the Arab
BLACKSHIRTS now got a complete history of my emails.
They do not need legislation to access anything and they obviously are more competent to find
out who writes what ab out them then ASIO can manage to even discover who in ASIO might be
ab le to do the job.
So, why on earth all the legislation when this gross incompetence with ASIO exist?
.
Excused me but did ASIO realised that peoples lives can be at stake when the Arab
BLACKSHIRTS can immediately know who writes what about them while ASIO perhaps takes
10 years or more to organise itself?
All those legislative provisions are utterly worthless, besides the uncalled intrusion upon
peoples lives and for I may state unconstitutional where it interferes with or undermines a
persons political liberty while ASIO needs to get off the ground to organise someone who is
ready and able to deal urgently with a matter of concern.
Robbing peoples political liberty under the guise of security while you havent even a competent
ASIO to deal instantly with a matter surely underlines this got nothing to do with national
security but all about misusing power to gain more dictatorship upon the people.
After all if there was a real NATIONAL SECURITY issue then why not arrest those who caused
the problems in the first place, like John Howard, George Brandis, Malcolm Turnbull, Julie
Bishop, Tony Abbott and a lot more who presided over the unconstitutionally murderous
invasion into Iraq? After all their claims that this invasion would make the world a safer place
was clearly a gross deception and rather made not just the world but in particular the
Commonwealth of Australia a more dangerous place to live in.
They might hide being politicians but let us be reminded what the Framers of the Constitution
stated and implemented as a legal principle in the constitution:
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

This means the real culprits are the then Ministers.

This also means that no matter what legislation the Parliament may pass to have enacted it cannot
and will not enable ASIO staff to sidestep legalities as they will be able to be held legally liable
for any wrongdoing. As such any unconstitutional conduct remains enforceable in law regardless
if any federal or state legislation purports otherwise.
In simple terms, the Parliament cannot shield anyone from constitutional liabilities.

45

50

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
p6
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE

Hence, any legislation in clear violation to legal principles embedded in the constitution will be
ULTRA VIRES!
.
35

40

45

50

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE

As I understand it Robet Menzies was a constitutional criminal to set up ASIO and use it upon
his political opponents, even to prevent a teacher to gain employment as a teacher because of
being politically associated with some political group. Hence, it appears to me ASIO is no more
but a political tool for a government in power and has really nothing to do with national security.
And as now appeared to be shown, when I call the Victorian listed ASIO number I end up with
the Federal Attorney Generals Department instead of directly being connected to ASIO itself.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/human-rights-guide-australias-counter-terrorism-laws
QUOTE

New police powers proposed by Napthine

55

THE AGE
Henrietta Cook, state political reporter
October 29, 2014
p7
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

Comments 16
Victorian police will be given new powers to secretly search homes - for
crimes that could include theft and minor assaults - if the Napthine
government is re-elected.
END QUOTE

As the states are created within s106 of the federal constitution subject to this constitution
then the Victorian Parliament can pass whatever bills it might desire but enforceable laws they
may never be because if they deny political liberty then the legislation will be ULTRA
VIRES.
.
It seems to me that if a government cannot even manage to have a proper security system in
place then no matter how many laws there are (constitutionally valid or not) in the end they are
generally worthless.

15

20

25

The Arab BLACKSHIRT meeting was to be held in the evening of 3 November 2014 and
obviously the time has passed. One may then ask; What kind of idiot is running ASIO? Why was
there no contact back with me, even to advise ASIO is dealing with the matter?
Or, is it that the Attorney Generals Department may conceal from ASDIO any reports that it
desires to withhold so that certain action required to bed taken will not be eventuating for
political purposes? So, if it was to be an issue that might involve the Coalition government then
the Attorney General Department will vet the notification to a void the Coalition to be
investigated of any wrongdoings?
If the Coalition itself is secretly supporting some unlawful conduct the Attorney Generals
Department can then railroad a notification and prevent any appropriate action to be taken.
.

30

35

40

45

50

55

If ASIO really is a national security organisation and not merely a political tool then the Attorney
Generals Department should have nothing to do with any notifications intended for ASIO, as
now appears it is doing.
Is it just intercepting possible notifications to shield its own illegal doings I wonder?
As I understand it ASIO used to report to Robert Menzies, instead of directly to the Federal
Parliament, and this again underlines ASIO to be nothing more but a political tool as otherwise it
should directly report to the Parliament.
.

Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism.
END QUOTE
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
. The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more repulsive than the
question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the existence in our midst of a certain
number of idle men-men sharpening their knives and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of
fleshing them on the people of their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australiafederated 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. We have no enemies within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of
any assault on the mother country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a
standing army proves a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force for
unlawful purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots upon these
resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want to do is to make every man
who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst
p8
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without. Who are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the
enemies of England, and they, so long as we remain under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer
barrier, an outer bulwark in the defence of Australia, in the shape of the navy of Old England. But we
have no enemies within, and there is no necessity to fasten the curse of a standing army upon us. As was
pointed out by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, yesterday, in his interesting speech, we have no necessity
to keep a large standing army at a large cost to the people of the country, [start page 185] when we have no
enemies with whom they will have to fight. Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of
order within. In the event of invasion from without, so long as we remain under the Crown, our enemies,
being the enemies of England, will be dealt with before ever an attempt is made to invade these shores; and
when the day of invasion comes the people of this country will rise as one man to defend their hearths and
homes from any possible aggressor.
END QUOTE

ASIO currently is so to say a standing army ready to use its knives on ordinary Australians.
More over there is no such thing as some kind of detention without rights as the Framers of the
Constitution made clear that any litigation was to be by judicial determination after both parties
had been heard.

20

25

30

35

40

45

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE

This means that this new charter can only be amended by way of a successful s128 referendum
and not by backdoor manner, not even by the High Court of Australia.
As I view it the real criminals who are threatening national security are the politicians who are
robbing the people of their rights, their taxes, etc. After all we wouldnt have the current spade of
problems had this unconstitutional invasion into Iraq not eventuated in the first place! As John
Howard declared a WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, while I view himself commencing this
WAR of TERRORISM, then while I may not approve of it I for one can understand that where
John Howard declared this war (not constitutionally being empowered to do so) then you cannot
blame those being it of the Arab BLACKSHIRTS or otherwise to accept this challenge and
respond in kind. As I view it, it was John Howard and his band of criminal political aligned gang
members who basic ally invited this kind of Jihad conduct and to now legislate as if those who
are responding are then terrorist hardly can be justified. Therefore John Howard and his cohorts
should be arrested and charged for bring Australians needlessly in danger.
If I invite someone to hit me and this person then upon this invitation does so then I would in my
view have no so to say leg to stand upon as to go to court and claim assault because the person
did no more but what I asked this person to do. Likewise, it might be the Arab BLACKSHIRTS
or anyone else, John Howard basically invited them to engage in a WAR OF TERRORISM and
do where they take up this war as they do no more what John Howard and his cohorts asked for.
.

50

55

Let us be clear about it, the political parties are fund raising all the time, as I get request of the
various political parties to do so. (Somehow my writings result I am placed on the list of who to
ask for money, rather than to deal with what I write about) and as such I for one doubt the
validity of any legislation for others to collect monies for political purposes, even if they might
be contrary to political parties in government. After all if the Arab BLACKSHIRTS are a
political organisation aimed to create an Islamic state in the Commonwealth of Australia then I
view they are constitutionally entitled to raise monies. As for any military conduct that they
might be involved with, where the Commonwealth of Australia without a declaration of wart
p9
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10
(published by the Governor-General in the Gazette) basically did what Adolf Hitler did to The
Netherlands, to invade first, then again it is the Commonwealth of Australia which was and still
is the aggressor and terrorist!
5

10

15

Sir Edmund Barton's ideas on Immigrants and being an Australian in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an
Australian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for
it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this
is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian.
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but something else
also, isn't an Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag. We have room for
but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty
and that is a loyalty to the Australian people."
Edmund Barton, 1907

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

20

Our name is our motto!

(
)
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
END QUOTE 4-11-2014 CORRESPONDENCE

25

30

35

40

I understand that the person who provided me with the information about his sons likely be
groomed for Jihad was contacted only once by someone about matters. This appears to indicate
that the increase of funding and increase of personnel of ASIO may so to say have contributed to
more fat cats doing nothing but certainly has not resulted in any better form of security. Indeed
the Lindt Caf incident is a clear example of total incompetence!
By cutting down on funding to what is claimed to be religious organisation but at times used for
terrorism can we start a beginning to actually make Australia a safer place.
This is not against any particular religion but against all religions, so that whichever person of
alleged religious belief may seek to harm others can be dealt with appropriately and possible
actions can be if not avoided minimised due to the lack of funding. But then again it would
require a real leader to address these issues and so far it seems to me Mr Tony Abbott has
proven to have been a failure in that regard. Why indeed did he not get rid of the AttorneyGeneral who appears to me to be the responsible Minister regarding ASIO, etc? Or is it that
his own position would be in jeopardy if he did so and so he rather place the general community
at risk?
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

45

(
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

p10
23-12-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati