20200114-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

ISSUE – Re National Security and Neocons

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

* Gerrit, are you referring to neoconservatives?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I will use the following to explain:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/neoconservative
QUOTE
having or expressing political views that are conservative or right wing, with a strong belief in the free market
and the belief that your country should use its military power to become involved with or try to control
problems in other countries:
the neoconservative approach to foreign policy
a neocon Senator
END QUOTE

* Isn’t that referring to the USA?

**#** Not necessary. When you consider that we have politicians who are pursuing war with
other countries then they are as much in the Australian Parliament as in the USA. In fact
considering the armed invasion into Iraq was a clear example how in my view neocons in our so
called (National) Intelligence Services are spreading the rubbish from the USA intelligence
Service to justify an unconstitutional murderous invasion into Iraq upon allegedly there being
WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Remember how Alexander Downer as High
Commissioner was interfering in the USA election, as to go down a pub to elicit details which he
then was passing on to the USA. I wonder did our Federal Government bother to charge him for
the cost to be repaid if it was at the pub at cost of taxpayers? Or is it just pensioners who wrongly
were overpaid who can be subjected to an unconstitutional ROBO scheme, I wonder.
* You did in the past state to be in principle against the killing of a human being albeit accept
that in war you may need to kill and opponent. What is your view about the killing of General
Soleimani of Iran?
**#** From what I read and video’s I watched he was allegedly participating in killing of 603
American soldiers, etc, and which the Americans held justified his killing as a military target. On
that basis where the past conduct is deemed relevant (remember that was also their argument
against the then President Saddam Hussein) then technically any Iraqi who is aggrieved as to the
killing of any family member due to John Howard unconstitutional authorization to invade a
“friendly” nation Iraq then he too and so various Ministers of Defense could be targeted as such.
* Why was it unconstitutional. Just remind me.
**#** Well, Iraq was not pursuing to Attack the Commonwealth of Australia, and as such only
the Governor-General at the time could publish in the Gazette a Declaration of War naming Iraq,
and only upon such publication could the Minister of Defense then deploy troops into Iraq. What
effectively John Howard did was to impersonate the position as Commander in Chief of the
armed forces to unconstitutionally authorize this murderous invasion and as such as like this
General Soleimani he (John Howard) in my view was and still is a justified military target.
p1 14-1-2020 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Actually I view he should have been charged with treason, etc. What we really seem to have is
that our so called Intelligence Services are lacking intelligence and more like parrots repeat
whatever they are instructed to claim to justify war. And yet none of those in the so called
Intelligence Services were held accountable for this. Let us be clear about it that we have this
going on and on and so to say we have a Government that is a puppet on a string of the so called
Intelligence Services who will make any absurd claim to get the Federal Government to act in a
certain manner.
We do not elect a Government, but they are generally drawn from the politicians we elect and
instead of them acting as a mouth peace for other countries they should concern themselves with
what is really in the national security interest of Australians.
We have that the British are somehow obsessed to blame the Russian for everything, never mind
the lack of evidence to prove it. And then we have some Foreign Minister who will be expressing
to attack some nation such as North Korea when really we can do without.
Look at the issue of MH17 and the Crimea issue. Why are Australians told lies and not the truth?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine,_2010
Constitution of Ukraine as passed on 28 June 1996, and readopted on 1 October 2010
QUOTE Article 17

The creation and operation of any armed formations not envisaged by law are prohibited on
the territory of Ukraine.

The location of foreign military bases shall not be permitted on the territory of Ukraine.

END QUOTE Article 17

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I prefer first to check a relevant constitution and while allegedly

Crimea in 1954 became part of Ukraine reality is that Article 17 of the Ukraine Constitution
doesn’t allow any foreign military bases. As such Crimea with the Russian Naval base simply
could not have been considered part of Ukraine. But as is often the case politicians don’t give a
hood about violating a constitution as long as it serves their purpose. Well, that is really what is
going on. And as I understand it from the research I did the British with the Ukraine Government
then were moving transporters in position to shoot down planes. Just that other then Ukraine
military planes and commercial planes no other planes appeared to use that airspace. What
however eventuated was they spliced various audio recordings and then created an audio
recording that purported to prove that the militia had admitted shooting down MH17. This
manufactured tape was seemingly already ready when MH17 was shot down. Indeed the battle
ground had been pretended to be different then where the Ukraine ground armed forces were as
to pretend it was not where they were in that area.
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201502201018526949/
President Poroshenko sacrificed Ukrainian soldiers
https://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/novorossiya-military-briefing-august-15.html
Novorossiya Military Briefing, August 15, 2014
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheduran.com%2Ffour-battles-broke-ukrainian-
army%2F%3A_eU_63Pk2vZxkVROabhUUQ8jVf4&cuid=3167535
Four battles that broke the Ukrainian army
I posted the following at
https://theduran.com/ukranian-whistleblower-reveals-mh-17-tragedy-was-orchestrated-by-poroshenko-and-
british-secret-service/#comment-131470
QUOTE
Great everyone has their point of view and is entitled upon it just that often they lack substance.
When I cross examine a witness I look at what I can expose the witness lied about. For example the
opponent party claimed to have used GPS to plot photo's that were taken as prove and might be
p2 14-1-2020 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 beyond question, just that I during cross-examine got the witness to admit one of the photo's actually
was not at all of that location. So the unquestionable GPS evidence was no more either. When with
9/11 the alleged planes were flown into the World Trade centre I was scanning videos until I came
across one where the tip of the alleged plane was coming out on the other side of the building without
damages to it. Considering the nose is an aluminum cone this then to me rather indicated it was a
rocket dressed up as a plane. How we were all conned to believe planes destroyed WTC towers
instead of rockets dressed up as planes! This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/367451711/20171219-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-
O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-the-Complicity-in-Terorism-and-Mass-murder-Plot-MH370-Etc-the-Constitution
Actually another video showed the basement being blown out when the tower was still standing.
Nothing to do with planes but being controlled demolition. Let us then consider the claim that Crimea
was part of Ukraine. Article 17 of the Ukraine constitution prohibits any foreign bases to be within
Ukraine. As Crimea all along had a Russian naval base then Crime never could have been part of
Ukraine. When we then come to the downing of MH 17 ample of persons claimed there were bullet
holes. When you take a closer look they are at the same distance from each other and really are rivet
holes where the main frame still had the rivets in them. . A pilot also expressed his views at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-pilot-speaks-out-shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-
malaysian-mh17/5394111 . The wreckage of MH17 seems to show that as like with the Titanic the
rivet system failure that may actually have caused more harm then realized so far. The document can
be downloaded from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/237549083/20140823-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
to-Ukraine-President-Petro-Poroshenko-Ukraine-Constitution-False-Ukraine-Jets-Allegations-Titanic-
Rivet-Defect-P This latter document sets out in details about the rivet system, etc, including images of
parts of the plane showing rivets holes not being bullet holes, as chamfering/recessing of holes is not
caused by bullets.
END QUOTE

So, here we had Australians being killed what appeared to be a pre-planned mass murder
involving the Ukraine Government and the British Government as to pursue that the world turn
itself against Russia, and we got Australian politicians precisely doing so. If we indeed had any
genuine and reliable Intelligence Services then they should have been able to expose this rot how
also Australians were murdered. But hey, let not expose the FALSE FLAG operation of some
other countries! And then we allegedly had Australian representatives who went to Ukraine but
somehow I understand from the research done by former Lieutenant Colonel of the Ukriane
Army Vasiliy Prozorow (MH17 In Search of Truth) the following eventuated:
Stage 1: (PREPARATORY)
AUDIO RECORDING FABRICATED
FLIGHT AREA LEFT OPEN
BATTLE LINE SHIFTED
PRESS STATEMENTS PREPARED
RADAR IN ARTEMOVSK DISABLED
DIVISION 2 OF 156 ANTI-AIRCRAFT REGIMENT MOVED TO THE COMBAT AREA

Stage 2: (Active)
MH-17 DOWNED BY BUK MISSILE
FIRST PERSONS OF THE COUNTRY INVOLVED
WESTERN INTELLIGENCE INVOLVED

Stage 3 (Information)
DISINFORMATION MEASURES
PUBLIC OPINION SHAPING
PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE COURT

https://russia-insider.com/en/divided-ukraine-story-west-doesnt-want-
hear/ri28016?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=922097e8de&mc_eid
=2c57cd92c9
DIVIDED UKRAINE STORY WEST DOESN’T WANT HEAR

One of the documents he used showed that the Australian Intelligence Officer which name I
understand might be Peter Calvin, was using a British mobile number +447407705575!
Now why on earth would an Australian Intelligence Officer use a British mobile number?

p3 14-1-2020 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
To me this indicates he appeared to be coordinating his kind of investigation as to what suited the
British. The British would be precisely aware what he was up to.

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. Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270

On that legal basis I view that the Australian Government was complicit to the mass murder of
those who were aboard of MH17. Yet we had then Foreign Minister Julie Bishop making
statement that those who were responsible should be held accountable.

The same really was perpetrated with September 11, 2001, when allegedly planes flew into the
World Trade Centre buildings, well 2 of them. Reality is that no plane could fly through such
iron structure of a building without even the aluminum nose cone being dented severely. Reality
is that the video I referred to above in my writings shows that only AFTER the nose cone is
clear of the building there is an explosion. Meaning, at least to me, that it was a rocket dressed up
as a plane and as happens with bunker busting rockets they will go through concrete walls, etc,
and only explode when the nose cone has penetrated through it and is clear of any pressure. And
as I understand it none of the alleged relatives of the (alleged) passengers of the 2 (alleged)
planes that flew into the world trade centre towers made any claim for compensation and merely
about 5 families of the plane that downed elsehwere.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-01-07-did-terrorist-planes-on-911-mysteriously-vanish.html

GHOST PLANES: How did all the physical veidence of terrorist planes on 9/11 mysteriously vanish?

What we have is that we have a Federal Government more interested to support other neocons to
go to war under any pretext and we Australians are copping the rot as result.
* What about the dispatch of a warship to the Middle East?
**#** Let it be clear that the ANZAC treaty is no more but that a “treaty”. It cannot override
constitutional requirements/limitations. And as such, unless the Commonwealth of Australia
itself is attacked it cannot do anything but to seek the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette
a DECLARATION OF WAR naming the country to be invaded. Failing this then I view those
politicians who participate in an unconstitutional invasion into a “friendly” country are
committing treason, crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc, and should face legal
accountability for this. An attack upon a USA ship is not against Australia itself!

HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the
Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a
responsible Minister.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
p4 14-1-2020 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the application of
the Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.

Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-

That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.

Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are not likely ever to be
invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.

Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this clause.

Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is an attack.

Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion follows.

Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion" covers the ground,
well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion" cover "attack"? Originally, the
amendment I intended to move used both the words "attack" and "invasion."

Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.

Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?

[start page 692]

Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country was
approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.

Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to invade, but to
attack.

Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the purpose of
attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian fleet at anchor?

Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is only bound to
protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its duty, and South Australia was
invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it should
have an equal claim against the Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However, if the
leader of the Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the
Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point.

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are booming there will
be no discussion about the meaning of the two words.

Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming? I thought
the object was to prevent the guns booming at all.

Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my honorable friend
(Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and "military." Now, an attack would be
naval, while an invasion would be military.

The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?

Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am content.

The amendment was withdrawn.

p5 14-1-2020 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
END QUOTE

We need to stop the neocons in Federal Parliament to use the Intelligence Services as to claim
justification for whatever when obviously we never are shown details as to what really
intelligence advice might have been. It cannot and never should be accepted that “National
Security” overrides our rights to know, as after all when things are going wrong we as
Australians are copping it.

Let us look at the Skripal case where again our politicians were joining the warmongerers against
Russia. Yet were is the concrete evidence? Well some might claim the OPCW made a statement,
but then later a whistleblower released documentation that the OPCW report was manufactured
to make it appear Russia was the culprit. Likewise with Syria, and the resulting bombardment,
but after whistleblowers exposed that the OPCW had again manufactured a report concealing
relevant details as to portray that the Syrian Government was the culprit when in fact the expects
had made clear that the 2 rockets couldn’t have been used as was claimed.
https://russia-insider.com/en/scoop-uk-demolish-skripals-home-evidence-mounts-he-poisoned-himself-
accident/ri25938
SCOOP: UK to Demolish Skripal's Home as Evidence Mounts That He Poisoned Himself by Accident

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/craig-murray-the-skripal-case-explained-in-10-interesting-points/
Craig Murray – The Skripal Case Explained in 10 Interesting Points

https://www.rt.com/uk/461463-novichok-bb-skripal-house/
No Novichok B&B for you: Authorities may buy Skripal house to prevent it from becoming a business

https://theduran.com/nyt-covers-up-cia-skripal-lie-with-even-worse-cia-skripal-lie-video/
NYT COVERS UP CIA SKRIPAL LIE WITH EVEN WORSE CIA SKRIPAL LIE VIDEO

It appears to me we have got grossly incompetent politicians in government, regardless of which

political party they are associated with, and we need to address this matters as soon or later it
might be too late for us to do so as someone else will do it for us. Somehow it seems my research
bring out the truth, and the billions of dollars we spend on Intelligence Services somehow cannot
get us any competent Intelligence Services advice. And this also should be a warning that the
courts shouldn’t rely upon so called National Security claims because in my view more than
likely it will be manufactured to suit neocons rather that Australians at large. Let us hold the
mass murderers and those covering up for them regarding MH17 to be held legally accountable!
Details to be made known as far too often this “National Security” claim proved to be a gross
misuse and abuse of power. We cannot accept “National Security” claims where we seem to have
neocons fabricating any version of events that resulted in the death and destruction in other
countries. As I understand it from my research the Ukraine Government with collaboration of the
British Government planned and executed mass murder of those in MH17 as to use it to blame
Russia for political games they were playing, and our government(s) seemingly went along with
this. In my view no fair dinkum Australian can let this go on! None of the political parties so far
are pursuing legal accountability of those who participated/covered up the mass murders.
The relatives of those victims are entitled that we as Australians unite to hold the culprit legally
accountable.

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 14-1-2020 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati