20200528-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

ISSUE –
Successful alternative to LOCKDOWNS itself unconstitutional

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

* Gerrit, now this appears to be interesting to me. Can you explain it?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, first of all it is a common knowledge that an “agents cannot
exercise greater powers than that of the grantor”. As such, if for example you give a lawyer
authority to act on your behalf in matters the lawyer cannot than exercise powers that you
yourself do not possesses. Neither can the lawyer exercise powers that you never in the first
place permitted.
Let say you engage a lawyer to represent you regarding some alleged traffic infringement. The
lawyer then goes out and sells your house without your authority ever having been given to do so
this means the sale would have been without legal validity.
The same when you have a fence dispute and you engage a lawyer who then engages a contractor
to say teardown your neighbourns private owned fence. Obviously if you had no right to tear
down a privately owned fence then your lawyer cannot either posess such powers.
* And how does this all relate to LOCKDOWNS and CLOSURE OF BORDERS?
**#** Let me quote the Framers of the Constitution.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
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

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p1 28-5-2020 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

As the States are created within Section 106 of this constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) then it must be clear that not even the courts can amend the
constitution. As Barton made clear when the Court interprets the constitution and it finds some
legislative powers then it is not amending the constitution but find that it always was part of the
constitution. In that regard Sue v Hill was not within this context because the High Court of
Australia claimed that somehow the Commonwealth over time became independent, this clearly
was not within the ambit that such powers always existed since federation.
Let us concentrate of the issue of the so-called “STATE OF EMERGENCY” that seemingly is
deployed by governments to somehow override constitutional rights of citizens. Where the
relevant Parliament is limited in its legislative powers and cannot amend the constitution then

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

p2 28-5-2020 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the
subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken
into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the
law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a
common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically
infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack
each other's laws.
END QUOTE

Again, the powers to amend any State/Territory/Commonwealth constitution is only within the
powers of the respective electors. This means that the relevant Parliament cannot grant greater
powers to the relevant government then it possesses to legislate for. The relevant Parliament not
having the powers to amend the respective constitution then neither can grant the Executive of a
State/Territory/Commonwealth such powers. As such, neither can such relevant Executive
(Government) then delegate any powers to the relevant health officials. Therefore, without any
approval of the relevant electors to amend the constitution to permit the relevant legislative body
to legislate for a “STATE OF EMERGENCY” to deny citizens their constitutional rights then
any purported “STATE OF EMERGENCY” declaration is limited within what powers the
relevant constitution provides for. This means that a “STATE OF EMERGENCY” cannot in
any manner interfere with a persons constitutional rights. No one can be held liable for any
alleged violation of laws that are unconstitutional. It would defeat the very purpose of the
constitution to define and regulate the powers of the legislators and its government if those acting
within constitutional powers could violate constitutional legal principles.

* Don’t they at times declare a “STATE OF EMERGENCY” such as with bush fires?

That is a form of emergency not to deny a person his/her constitutional powers but such as to a
specific fire danger that exist to say close of a road to allow emergency workers the ability to
fight the fire. However, to translate this that then one can close borders that someone might be
infected and enter the state regardless that such person may not at all be infected is I view
unconstitutional. Likewise, Section 117 of the constitution denies any state/territory (as they are
quasi states) to discriminate against residents of other states not applicable to its own residents.
As such, if a State allows its own residents to enter this state (after having left the state
previously) then it cannot deny a resident of another state to enter under like conditions.

* Didn’t you write to Prime Minister Scott Morrison extensively about this?
**#** Indeed I did and actually earlier today did so again.
When states (USA) shows that their death toll regarding COVID-19 without a lockdown is similar then
that of Australia then surely this may underline that to secure the real vulnerable people such as in
nursing homes is to be the issue.

This document can be downloaded from:

p3 28-5-2020 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 https://www.scribd.com/document/463237613/20200528-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-PM-Mr-
SCOTT-MORRISON-Re-Successful-Alternative-to-LOCKDOWN-Etc

This is a 31 page document, that includes numerous quotations of the Framers of the Constitution
regarding QUARANTINE issues. It also refers to how health officials have been making claims
that later are shown to be incorrect, etc.
It should be understood that when you are dealing with health officials who have so to say a
personal and/or financial stake in what they are ordering then they are bound at times to misuse
their powers. And this I view is how modelling of any pandemic likely might be explained.
Pretend it will be extremely serious and then later claim that the measurements were preventing
this state of disaster. As this correspondence also sets out is how between different USA
states where there was NO LOCKDOWN was percentage wise less deaths claimed against
COVID-19 then those of some other states that had LOCKDOWNS. As I keep repeating the
Chinese put out a video, in which it claims that COVID-19 is also “AIRBORNE”. They make
clear that this is ignored. As such, personal distancing is not going to do it. Also that the risk of
contamination from surfaces is not at all as was originally claimed to be.
What we need to be concerned about is to have a system in place that in the event there is a
second or even a third wave of COVID-19 that then we have a process in place that will not
unduly interfere with the rights of anyone while providing the maximum protection to the
vulnerable persons. Regulating “healthy” persons is to side-track attention away from the
“vulnerable” persons. Victoria reportedly fining more than 6,000 persons itself seems to be
extortion and a form of terrorism as one cannot be fined for exercising once constitutional rights.
As such abuse of police powers!

* Didn’t you write to Victorian Ombudsman D. Glass about this?

**#** I did on 8 April 2020, and she passed this on to IBAC who responded to me it is not a
matter of “Public Interest”. Well, if it is allegedly a State of Emergency and not in the Public
Interest to enforce this then why are the police then involved? Any violation of a person’s
constitutional rights is in my view of public interest!
* If Clive Palmer and/or Pauline Hanson were to litigate about the border closures such as
regarding Section 92 what is your view about that?
**#** In my view Section 117 would be more relevant albeit s92 can be used in combination
with s117. In my view they should be successful as the court must not side with any party but
hand down a judgment that reflects the true meaning and application of the constitution.
To allow any violation of constitutional rights would mean that politicians can do this time and
time again claiming some kind of “STATE OF EMERGENCY” powers and as I already
explained already a Governor in the USA is using this to prevent electors to remove him from
office within the legal processes there existing.

Reportedly flu vaccination makes a person more vulnerable to become infected this as it
reportedly reduces the immune system by allegedly 36%. So, those who are going to be
vaccinated better realize the health risk associated with such vaccination, this, as instead of
protecting the person it might in the overall actually jeopardize the persons health and wellbeing.

I happen to hear over the news (radio) that allegedly some 35 pages booklet is issued by the
Victorian Government to dictate to restaurants what they can or cannot do and this include to
have a record of the name and number of each customer.
This to me smack to communism to record the whereabouts of every person who desires to visit
a restaurant. Yet, the same doesn’t apply to customers who are attending to supermarkets, etc.
This alleged justification of contract tracing I view is an abuse of power. More and more this
system is misused as a way to slowly encroach more and more upon the liberties of residents.
p4 28-5-2020 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
While at a hospital one visits or attends to there are ordinary known people who are sick of
whatever cause, in restaurants this is not so.
Let us not forget, what I call scam, of having simcards recorded. Time and time again the
overseas call centre misstate my surname no matter how accurately I spell my name this as often
instead of “hyphen” they use an underscore, etc. Then I am refused to activate my simcard and
have endless battles to finally get a simcard activated. It is a financial burden in my view totally
uncalled for and more over had we not had a Federal government to unconstitutionally invade
Iraq and cause death and destruction including what I view mass-murder, crimes against
humanity, war crimes, treason, etc, we never may have had to suffer all those so called terrorism
laws. And as is now revealed that the USA Government all along was aware that a Saudi official
in a Saudi Embassy in the USA was in fact coordinating the 9-11 hijackers, as was allegedly last
week accidentally revealed in FOI details where people are suing the Saudi Government, then
why on earth was this murderous invasion of Iraq warranted. I get it President Saddam Hussein
had WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and we were informed by the Federal Government
that they would be located. This may underline that you must never trust politicians or for that so
called Intelligent Services as they are concealing relevant details adverse to their cause to commit
mass murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason, etc.
One has to ask, why on earth did our Intelligence Services not know about the Saudi Government
involvement, that is if they not concealed it themselves, and made clear to the Federal
government that Iraq had no part in it all. What now occurred was to unleash terrorism of
considerable proportions and reportedly including many young girls being burned to death by
terrorist for refusing to subject them to their captures. How on earth can we stand by by
politicians and others who knowingly caused such harm upon the many and yet never were held
legally liable before any courts?
As must be clear that the number of people dying from other causes not related to COVID-19 is
considerable and yet it was not used to LOCKDOWN let alone record the movement of diners,
etc. In my view the Courts have a duty to ensure that this kind of what I consider communism
must not be allowed to erode constitutional principles embedded in the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and strike down every infringement notice issued failing
to provide first that “both sides” are heard before a judicial decision is made by a court.
We need to reverse the overarching trend to abuse the powers by politicians and others acting on
their behalf, including the police and must restore the constitutional rights embedded in the
constitution. Failing this, we are under dictatorship/tyranny and then the rule of law is no more.

Politicians cannot demand citizens to comply with their so-called laws which violate
constitutional principles/rights and yet themselves blatantly disregard the true meaning and
application of the constitution.

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!)

p5 28-5-2020 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati