20200216-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

ISSUE –
Re Pauline Hanson-Racism-Aboriginals, etc

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

* Gerrit, are you aware that the High Court of Australia made a ruling that Aboriginals cannot be
aliens?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I have assisted/represented parties in litigation and proved
beyond doubt that the Family Court of Australia at times hands down judgment already pre-
determined before the hearing is completed. Also for decades I exposed that many of the so
called “intervention orders” are based upon fabricated allegations merely to ensure that the
mother can have a legal advantage to gain custody by fabricating violence or other inappropriate
conduct by the father.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/media-often-pretend-pauline-hanson-is-wrong/ar-
AAIoLKa?ocid=spartandhp
QUOTE
Media often 'pretend' Pauline Hanson is wrong

Sky News host Chris Kenny says 'the media' continuously take aim at One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson
and "pretend she is wrong".

Mr Kenny said, "they say she's wrong and tell audiences that black is white...Do they really take their
audiences for complete fools?"

"I suppose journalists don't want ever to agree with Pauline Hanson, so they go with the flow and tell us she
is wrong, even when she is right."

His comments came Senator Hanson was appointed deputy chair of the inquiry into the family law system,
after she had called for it to be established.

The One Nation party leader’s appointment sparked controversy after she claimed women often invented
claims of domestic and sexual abuse to punish their partners.

END QUOTE

Likewise, there is this claim that Pauline Hanson is a “racist” which is the mantra of anyone who
doesn’t agree with another person stating FACTS.

We not just have politicians blatantly deceiving the general community but even judges who I
view are committing treason by abusing and misusing their judicial powers by backdoor manner
amend the constitution outside Section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) provisions..

Those who have some understanding about the U.S.A Salem witch-hunt may be aware that
people joined the cult following to declare whomever being a witch. It was only when the

p1 16-2-2020 © 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
governor’s wife was being accused of being a witch that the Governor then stopped the rot. In the
meantime however many innocent people had been killed.

Our constitution was based upon that Aboriginals were equal to other Australians. And as such
any laws that violated the constitutional principles were therefore without legal force. Section
127 had a special purpose as I have set out in my published books previously and so will not
delve into that again. For all purposes, Section 41 of the Constitution made very clear that any
person (including Aboriginals) who had been granted State voting rights were
AUTOMATICALLY entitled to vote in federal elections. Nothing the Commonwealth could do
to prevent this, well that is constitutionally. The 1967 referendum to amend Ss51(xxvi) was a
con-job referendum that could not give the Aboriginals any rights they already had since
federation.
Ss51(xxvi) as specifically against “aliens” “coloured’ “inferior races” and as such the Framers of
the constitution made sure that Aboriginals were not included. As such it was absurd if not crazy
to amend Ss51(xxvi) to include Aboriginals. This Section was designed to “DISCRIMINATE”
against “aliens” “coloured’ “inferior races”. The 1967 referendum never was put to the electors
to change the application regarding “aliens” “coloured’ “inferior races” and as such as one
cannot in law that is have a section that has opposing meanings then the true meaning and
application of the amendment was that Aboriginals now became “equal” to being a “aliens”
“coloured’ “inferior race”.
As such you cannot have the High Court of Australia claiming that Aboriginals born outside the
Commonwealth of Australia are not “aliens” because they are nationality wise. I never agreed
with the High Court of Australia so to say kicking out certain parliamentarians like Barnaby
Joyce for being entitled to have new Zealand “citizenship” in violation of Section 44 of the
constitution as this was a wrong interpretation of s44. But, now we are going to have that
Aboriginals, wherever they were born in the world can have somehow double nationality and
still be in Parliament? Come on! This whole “citizenship” nonsense was precisely that
“nonsense” because if we had competent judges they would have rejected the notion of
“Australian Citizenship” being some nationality. I fought this on 19 July 2006 in both appeals
and so successfully and as such it is not for the High Court of Australia to abuse and misuse its
judicial powers to pretend otherwise.

I very much seek to follow as much as possible what is going on in the U.S.A where I view this
can be relevant to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). After all the
Framers of the Constitution held that we have the liberties equal if not better than the Americans
then had with their U.S constitution and 14 Amendments.
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.

END QUOTE

p2 16-2-2020 © 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
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

Our FREEDOM OF THE PRESS and FREEDOM OF SPEECH must be considered to be

nothing less then what is applicable in the U.S.A.

I provide below my Post regarding the article “The Roots of Our Partisan Divide” which deals
with how laws were enacted but had at time the opposite application.
We have a discrimination against the “general community” where Aboriginals (and Torres Strait
Islanders” re being fed with billions of dollars but where is the constitutional powers for this I
ask! It is the same with the Grants Commission!

I noticed the article https://insidestory.org.au/in-defence-of-bridget-mckenzie/ In defence of

Bridget McKenzie

What needs to be addressed is that this entitre Grant commission is likely unconstitutional. It
makes not one of iota difference if Ministers from State may agree for the Commonwealth to
have a Grants Commission, as where there is no constitutional powers for this then it is totally
irrelevant what the ministers may agree upon.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may
be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have
this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the
Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason onl y I will ask
permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE

p3 16-2-2020 © 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
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/roots-partisan-
divide/?utm_campaign=imprimis&amp%3Butm_source=housefile&amp%3Butm_medium=ema
il&amp%3Butm_content=feb2020partisandivide&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-
_WiTL6EfeVXRFYS6EN5cZHsUJ2kRHjJWHvch9EKfbN9l5j0PUfUVZFEKAGwkKctqYPnd
ZkkcKYgsA3SlenNJQUfN3wv_rv5BjRQxGf24pWUyGvasA&_hsmi=83394192

The Roots of Our Partisan Divide

February 2020 • Volume 49, Number 2 • Christopher Caldwell

QUOTE Posted 15-2-2020 12:55 by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

I would recommend everyone to not just read but also consider what Christopher Caldwell
has set out. And I may add the same really applies to Australia where the 1967 referendum
was to hijack what was really constitutionally applicable and appropriate followed with the
unconstitutional Racial Discrimination Act 1975 with now in my view unelected judges
becoming constitutional terrorist to alter the true meaning and application of the
constitution as they desire ignoring the rights of the general community. The judiciary
using judgment to amend by backdoor manner the true meaning and application of the
constitution in my view should be awarded with charges of treason and held legally
accountable. Months before the USA supreme Court agreed that president Donald J Trump
could redirect monies from the army to building the wall I already had written that this in
my view was constitutionally permissible. It is not for being some Trump follower but
because as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider what the true meaning and application of
a constitution is really about. Like with Crimea where Article 17 of the Ukraine
Constitution prohibit any foreign bases in Ukraine. As such, the Russian base in Crimea
implied that Crimea really never was part of Ukraine. What we often have is that
politicians will claim something about the constitution when it may suit their purposes but
then at the same time disregard the very constitution they rely upon to be a Member of
Parliament. In Australia Ss51(xxvi) was to discriminate against a “race” (The Framers of
the Constitution by this actually were referring to a group of people who had a common
denominator not necessarily being of a particular skin colour or nationality) the
Aboriginals were held not to fall within the “race” powers as they were considered “equal”
amongst other Australians. Yet, supported by the United nations the Aboriginals got their
1967 referendum to include them in the ss51(xxvi) race power. Yet, not because they
desired to be discriminated against but because they desired to discriminate against the
“general community”. And that is how judges have followed on to do so.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-

the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general community;
but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the
aboriginal race in any state.

END QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with the
affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
p4 16-2-2020 © 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
 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the
Commonwealth should not have power to devise such laws.

END QUOTE

We now have what I view judicial unconstitutional judgments to overrule by backdoor manner
what the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution provided for by declaring that even a
person who was born in a foreign country but claiming to be an Aboriginal now cannot be
deported for crimes committed. This totally ignoring that the Framers of the Constitution
specifically provided for
QUOTE Section 51
(xxvii) immigration and emigration;
(xxviii) the influx of criminals;

END QUOTE

The Framers of the Constitution made clear that anyone even those of British nationality (We all
remain to be constitutionally that is) could be denied to re-enter the Commonwealth of
Australia having scored a criminal conviction previously, regardless where the person was
born.

So we now have that the High Court of Australia judicial activism now provide once again those
claiming to be Aboriginals special rights never considered nor intended by the Framers of
the Constitution or for that by those who voted in the 1967 referendum.

As I wrote about over the years, a man who was born in Europe and after decades divorcing his
wife then well had a women coming to live with him who was of Aboriginal descent and
well that entitled him now to also benefit of special provisions applicable to Aboriginals.
Just that one ought to wonder what this “Closing the gap” about Aboriginals is about. Was
it not that the Ss51(xxvi) referendum constitutional amendment to pursue “equality”
instead it is used to divert billions of dollars to the Aboriginal “sorry” institution created by
the many financially profiting from this while the very Aboriginals supposed to be
supported financially are living in squalor. Wait, this must be obviously the fault of the
“white” people. Just that what is referred to as the “white” people really means any person
(even those of colour) who are not of Aboriginal descent.
The unconstitutional Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is in contradiction of Ss51(xxvi) but the
judiciary has willingly hijacked this also to suit their own mantra rather than to uphold the
true meaning and application of the constitution, according to their oath of office.
Christopher Caldwell set out as such at least in my view very much outlines also what is going
on in the Commonwealth of Australia.
History provides numerous incidents where people were wronged. We cannot undo history but
we can learn from it. To apologize for something in which we played no part, either we
were not living at that time or didn’t participate to the society at the time living elsewhere,
is a gross absurdity. We have this culture of “apologist” who demands we apologize for
something that eventuated hundreds of years ago, and we pay some form of restitution
(actually more like being blackmailed) just to keep this apologetic industry financially
benefitting. We need to stop this. We just accept that within internal relations all people are
“equal” and not some more “equal” then others.
Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act specifically relied upon “marriage” being
between a “man” and a “woman” and therefore any purported marriage otherwise is

p5 16-2-2020 © 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
 doomed to fail in constitutional terms. I for one do not accept that my rights as an elector
can be hijacked by politicians/judges merely because it may suit their agenda. The
constitution is the will of the People and only a proper amendments can alter the version of
the constitution and not some political/judicial abuse of powers.
END QUOTE Posted 15-2-2020 12:55 by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

The so to say Bleeding Hearts Brigade will never accept that the billions of dollars
(unconstitutionally) thrown to Aboriginals will be sufficient from then as they will continue to
ignore those Aboriginals living in squalor because after all they are a pion in their chess game
how to extract monies.
It is in my view utter and sheer nonsense to argue that after about 230 years Aboriginals still
have not been able to live within our society where many gained honourable achievements, even
one being GOVERNOR of South Australia.
We need to stop squandering billions of dollars towards Aboriginals and instead demand they
like anyone else pull up to be part of society. Why indeed do we demand that the unemployed do
work for the dole, etc, but then when it comes to Aboriginals they get special treatment? That is
not “equality” but rather “reverse racism”.
I warned for years that the very nonsense the High Court of Australia now appears to me to claim
that Aboriginals born outside the Commonwealth of Australia cannot be aliens, as many other
countries have “Aboriginals” and now they can all demand entry regardless of their criminal
records. Surely this is utter and sheer nonsense and I view this ought to be placed before the
Privy Council.
* You are not disputing what Pauline Hanson stated?
**#** That is a general question that obviously I cannot answer because I do not know whatever
Pauline Hanson has been stating. However, I view that when it comes to fraudulent claims for
intervention orders, I personally have experienced this and know too well, and wrote about this
in the past being used to get a better legal position to gain custody. Likewise, with Aboriginals
issues, we have actually no constitutional provisions whatsoever that permits the Commonwealth
to waste billions of dollars towards Aboriginals and deny the “general community” of the same
financial support.
* What about ss51(xxvi)?
**#** As I stated before Ss51(xxvi) only permits to “DISCRIMINATE” against a certain race.
And the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in that regard violated Ss51(xxvi) and as such is
unconstitutional. Chamberlains Appeasement to Hitler regarding Czechoslovakia didn’t work
and likewise the same with Aboriginals. Racism is practiced by the very people who are
promoting/enabling Aboriginals to have more rights than the “general community”.
I may add that discriminationnis rigfe:

QUOTE Posted 15-2-2020 00:56 by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

I grew up understanding that males make babies and females give birth to babies. As a
senior citizen I always held the view that anyone else is as much entitled to have their
views as I am entitled to have. However, it is different when you have views that you seek
to dictate in some from against others their rights. If a person desires to be a transgender
then that is that person’s choice as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.
Hence, when a transgender unfairly denies others their rights/opportunities then I view this
cannot be catered for. This is not then about “equal” rights but rather a denial of “equal”
rights. In this case I view the biological females are entitled to compete “equally” against
other biological females. This is not any discrimination against any “transgender” as the
transgender can have their own completion of “transgenders” as much as males can have a
male completion. In particular, where there is issues such as scholarship opportunities
p6 16-2-2020 © 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
 involved I view that no one in his/her right mind can accept that a completion between
biological different persons is a form of “equality”. In my view all sporting achievements
must be based upon the biological origin of the persons involved. Hence, any sporting
trophies awarded in a female sport to non-biological claimed female should be declared
invalid and awarded to the biological females that otherwise would have won it.
END QUOTE Posted 15-2-2020 00:56
https://www.foxnews.com/us/connecticut-high-school-girls-lawsuit-transgender-athletes-sex-
discrimination
Conn. high school girls file lawsuit arguing that allowing transgender athletes to compete is
sex discrimination
I do not care of a person claims to be some donkey, zombie, trans or whatever as that is the right
of that person provided this doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.
Society have for its own well set out reasons held that certain sports should be set aside
specifically for certain biological compatible persons. It is unfair to biological women who may
excel in certain sports to achieve some scholarship to have this robbed from them by biological
males pretending to be females. For sure, there are women who may not desire to ever become
pregnant, but that is irrelevant to the issue. What it is about is that their biological make up is to
be a female. Transgenders are defying the biological existence of their own bodies and while
they can assume whatever they desire it makes not one iota of difference to anyone else unless
they interfere with the rights of others. In my view female sports is designed because of the
biological make up of women and so there is no equality when biological women as
disadvantaged and robbed of the opportunity to compete against other biological females.

If I were in power I would stop all unconstitutional grants and pork barreling and billions
of dollars wasted in an unconstitutional manner to Aboriginals and operate within the
confines of the constitution. This so all Australians are truly equal regardless of their
colour of skin, etc.

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!)

p7 16-2-2020 © 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