20210118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To President Donald J Trump-VP Pence, FBI, NG, Military & Others

President Donald J Trump (Australia) 18-1-2021
White House, USA

@realDonaldTrump
Cc: VP Mike Pence @VP

FBI @FBI
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
20210118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to President Donald J Trump- VP Pence FBI, NG, Military & others
Sir,
I refer back to my previous correspondence also.
I like to draw your attention to the following:
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

QUOTE
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will
give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.”
END QUOTE
The conspiracy was to prevent President Donald J Trump his rightful earned re-election.
https://www.westernjournal.com/texas-ag-announces-arrest-woman-alleged-shocking-voter-fraud-
crimes/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=WJBreaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=western-journal
Texas AG Announces Arrest of Woman for Alleged Shocking Voter Fraud Crimes
QUOTE
One of her main clients at the time, Rodriguez said, was GOP House hopeful Mauro Garza, who ended up
losing to Democrat Rep. Joaquin Castro in November.
“Mauro, right now, he said: ‘OK, Raquel, if you were running, what would you do?’ So, he sat me down and
I said: ‘I would do this, this, this, this, and this.’ He said: ‘How much money do you think you would need ?’
And I budgeted everything, right? OK, so you do it,’” she said.
“He was paying me $5,000 a month, but now he’s paying me $8,000 a month. Why? Because I took on his
extra jobs.”
Advertisement - story continues below
Garza denied any wrongdoing, telling The Texan that Rodriguez was a former campaign volunteer and
saying he would “welcome any investigation and accountability to expose these outlandish allegations.”
There were a long list of other clients Rodriguez listed, too — from judges to state legislators.
END QUOTE
p1 18-1-2021 © 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 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
And, as I stated in my previous writings:
My personal view is that what appears to be proven is that the USA election system is
worse then that of a third country BANANA REPUBLIC, and needs to be drastically
addressed to ever again have such a disastrous system in place.
One then has to consider the motives of those who allegedly unlawfully entered the Capitol.
As I set out previously that the Capitol is a sovereign entity and ordinary District of Columbia
laws do not apply unless the Capitol adopted them. As such, the Congress (so each House of
Congress) can only deal with matters while a person is within its legal jurisdiction as to
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.
As noticed above the “motive” is very much an issue even so lawmakers have a right to legislate
as they like they are nevertheless limited by the provisions of the constitution and not to do what
they like despite the embedded legal principles of the constitution.
This means that lawmakers who defy the legal principles of the constitution cannot be excluded
from legal liability because they are acting within the sanctity of the Congress while willingly
legislating in violation of the constitution and so it’s embedded legal principles. It would be
absurd that a lawbreaker could hide behind provisions of the constitution while violating the very
same constitution.
Sen Joe Manchin (Democrat) himself has indicated to seek the removal of any Senator who
voted against the 25th Amendment being used against the sitting President Donald J Trump. As
such, he makes clear that in his view your rights to vote in the Congress can be sanctioned if you
do not vote to how opposition members agree. As such the fact that Senator Kamala Harris as a
lawmaker was condoning, approving, promoting, inciting murderous riots to continue both
before and AFTER the election seems not to be an issue, but for any lawmaker to vote as
lawfully entitled upon then somehow he uses the constitution to try to build a case. This in
reverse could be used against any lawmaker who votes for legislation to say allow undocumented
persons to be come lawful citizens as there are ample of tent cities of homeless people and so
why add more to it and so such kind of vote would be repugnant to the legal principles embedded
in the constitution. What Sen Joe Manchin essentially is stating is that even if lawmakers are
appropriately exercising their right to vote as they seem fit and proper without any intent to
violate legal principles embedded in the constitution then nevertheless he would seek to oust
such a lawmaker where it is not according to his view, regardless if they are or are not
constitutionally correct. Therefore setting up a one party system that you must agree with the
dictatorship of those having the majority, even so at the time that the vote was taken not holding
such a majority. In my view, Sen Joe Manchin is committing a form of TERRORISM by his
reported statement.
What however he has presented, albeit likely unintended, that Members of Congress can be held
legally accountable for any conduct they are involved in within the sovereign Capitol where this
was intentionally to violate the constitution. And, Senator Kamla Harris clearl in my view did so.
https://trishintel.com/eric-swalwell-compares-trump-to-osama-bin-laden/
Eric Swalwell compares Trump to Osama Bin Laden
QUOTE

January 14, 2021
‘Osama Bin Laden did not enter U.S. soil on September 11, but it was widely
acknowledged that he was responsible for inspiring the attack on our country,’ Rep. Eric
Swalwell told PBS on Wednesday.
‘And the president, with his words, using the word ‘fight’ – that is hate speech that inspired
and radicalized people to storm the Capitol.’
PBS host Judy Woodruff pressed Swalwell if he was comparing President Trump to Bin
Laden, and Swalwell replied: ‘I’m comparing the words of a individual who would incite
and radicalize somebody, as Osama Bin Laden did, to what President Trump did.”
‘You don’t actually have to commit the violence yourself, but if you call others to
violence, that itself is a crime.’
END QUOTE
Lest apply this to Senator Kamala Harris:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5THZGzrXmU
Dan Bongino – Media Sit in Shameful Silence as Pres Sec
interviewer: ...... protest still happening..

That is right. They are not going to
Senator Kamala Harris:
stop. They are not going to stop. And this is a
movement they are not going to stop. And everyone
be aware that they are not going to stop. They are
not going to stop before election day in November.
And they are not going to stop after election day.
And that should be everyone taking notice of this
on both levels. This is, they are not going to let up.
And they should not, and we should not.
Now, this will be a beauty to confront Eric with when he is also presenting the Impeachment if
he did since the statement was made pursue impeachment of Senator Kamala Harris and if not
why not?
Repeat:
And they should not, and we should not.
https://www.westernjournal.com/nancy-pelosi-floats-prosecution-republican-
lawmakers/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=WJBreaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=w
estern-journal
Nancy Pelosi Floats 'Prosecution' of Republican Lawmakers
QUOTE
“If, in fact, it is found that members of Congress were accomplices to this insurrection, if they aided
and abetted the crime, there may have to be actions taken beyond the Congress in terms of prosecution
for that,” Pelosi said.
END QUOTE

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/louie-gohmert-dunks-pelosi-quotes-support-black-
lives-matter-riots-house-floor-liberals-freak/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-
pundit&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=daily
Louie Gohmert DUNKS on Pelosi – Quotes Her Support for Black Lives Matter Riots on
House Floor– Liberals Freak Out!
The irony to me is, that the very Democrats pursuing certain actions against Republicans are
actually committing themselves to the very conduct they pursue against Republicans.
One can then also argue that if Senators can be held liable for opposing the application of the 25th
Amendment, regardless of if on legal principles this was appropriate to be applied, then the same
could be argued against the lawmakers of the House of Representatives having failed to pursue
an impeachment against Senator Kamala Harris for condoning, approving, promoting and
inciting the murderous riots to continue both before and AFTER the election.
Sanity will be nowhere, as madness will have taken over.

VP Pence while having been provided by the constitution to count Electoral College slates
nevertheless the embedded legal principles are that matters essentially must be done in a FAIR
and PROPER manner and that for example FREEDOM OF SPEECH is provided for.
While VP Pence may seek to rely upon what I view being a cop out that there is “LEGAL
ADVICE” one has to consider that when there are 100 cases of litigation before the courts and
both parties are provided with “LEGAL ADVICE” and 100 of those cases are all adjudicated
upon by the court and 100 end up losing the case and 100 opposing parties succeed then if one
were to apply the same to doctors loosing 50% of the patients they operate upon then they be
called “CHARLATANS”, regardless of their medical qualifications.
In particular in political members of the legal profession are not uncommon providing their legal
views clouded by their political views which cannot somehow override constitutional provisions,
as opponent lawyers may have opposing legal views.
Therefore one cannot rely upon having been provided with unsound “LEGAL ADVICE” merely
because it was given by lawyers.
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and
painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is
whether the consideration was sufficient in law.
END QUOTE
Therefore there can be no excuse for anyone to violate constitutional provisions merely because
some legal advisor may have claimed that it is OK. To allow for that would make a mockery of
the constitution and any legal provision. Too often politicians will claim “I cannot divulge my
legal advice.” And, they may very well not have the kind of “LEGAL ADVICE” purportedly
being claimed to have had. In any event “LEGAL ADVICE” doesn’t override the rule of law and
neither can be deemed to be the rule of law. In the end the actor will be legally accountable for
whatever decision/conduct was engaged in. A court may consider a proven “LEGAL ADVICE”
as to perhaps reduce culpability of a person held violating legal provisions but it never can allow
that “LEGAL ADVICE” trumps the constitution.
In Australia, the law as to political voting is that one can vote in secret. Then there are legal that
dictate provisions that dictates how a person shall vote, in what manner that is. As the High
Court of Australia made clear that because of the secrecy of voting a person could simply defy

the legislated provisions of manner of voting and no one would be the wiser for it. Which means
there can be legal obligations but at times they cannot be enforced. For example, my wife
eyesight was such that she requested me to fill in her ballot paper. Which I did, albeit I refused
myself to vote on constitutional grounds that “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional.
The Commonwealth then took me to court and representing myself after a 5 year legal battle I in
AEC v Schorel-Hlavka defeated the Commonwealth on constitutional grounds. As such I proved
that what might be laws they are not to override the constitution or for that my constitutional
rights. My wife however vote nevertheless as she fears the litigation. That to me is a form of
TERRORISM by the Government.
With VP Pence the following set out may be better understood.
QUOTE Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 (24 October 1995)
Jurisdictional error
10. In considering what constitutes "jurisdictional error", it is necessary to distinguish between, on the one
hand, the inferior courts which are amenable to certiorari and, on the other, those other tribunals exercising
governmental powers which are also amenable to the writ. Putting to one side some anomalous exceptions,
the inferior courts of this country are constituted by persons with either formal legal qualifications or
practical legal training. They exercise jurisdiction as part of a hierarchical legal system entrusted with the
administration of justice under the Commonwealth and State constitutions. In contrast, the tribunals other
than courts which are amenable to certiorari are commonly constituted, wholly or partly, by persons without
formal legal qualifications or legal training. While normally subject to administrative review procedures and
prima facie bound to observe the requirements of procedural fairness, they are not part of the ordinary
hierarchical judicial structure. In what follows, the anomalous courts or tribunals which fall outside the above
broad descriptions can be ignored. Since the District Court of South Australia is undoubtedly a court, the
primary focus of discussion will be upon what constitutes jurisdictional error on the part of an inferior court.
11. An inferior court falls into jurisdictional error if it mistakenly asserts or denies the existence of
jurisdiction or if it misapprehends or disregards the nature or limits of its functions or powers in a case where
it correctly recognises that jurisdiction does exist. Such jurisdictional error can infect either a positive act or a
refusal or failure to act. Since certiorari goes only to quash a decision or order, an inferior court will fall into
jurisdictional error for the purposes of the writ where it makes an order or decision (including an order or
decision to the effect that it lacks, or refuses to exercise, jurisdiction) which is based upon a mistaken
assumption or denial of jurisdiction or a misconception or disregard of the nature or limits of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
22. Judge Russell's conclusion that the appellant "could not receive a fair trial unless he is
properly represented by counsel" and his order staying the proceedings were based on a
number of particular preliminary findings of fact. Those findings were directed to the
matters identified in the above extract from the judgment of Mason CJ and McHugh J in
Dietrich. They included the following: that the appellant was charged with "major
indictable offences"; that the appellant was "an indigent accused" who had "been refused
legal aid" and had "no means, or no sufficient means, to fund the cost of (proper)
representation"; that it could not be said that the appellant's lack of legal representation
resulted from any "fault" on his part; that there were no "exceptional circumstances which
would prevent" the making of a stay order; that the appellant had no legal training and
suffered from an impediment of speech. Clearly, if those findings are accepted, the present
case was one in which the decision of this Court in Dietrich required that the
proceedings should be adjourned, postponed or stayed. Indeed, the extract from the
transcript which has been set out earlier in this judgment indicates that counsel for the
Crown effectively conceded that that was so. The Crown's attack on his Honour's order

staying the proceedings has, at all stages, been directed at one of those findings, namely,
the finding that the appellant's inability to obtain legal representation had not been brought
about through his own fault. The basis of the Full Court's decision that an order in the
nature of certiorari should be made was a conclusion of the majority judges that that
finding was vitiated by error amounting to jurisdictional error.
END QUOTE
What this indicates is that while VP Mike Pence may have the constitutional powers to count the
Electoral College certified slates, nevertheless, if he does so he is bound to do so within the
context of the embedded legal principles of the constitution and not despite of this. As such,
where the constitution provides for the State Legislature then where there is a dispute notified to
him that there is a legal dispute about the validity of purported Electoral College certified slates
he cannot disregard this. He must then take appropriate action to ensure that any so presumed
Electoral College slates are actually properly certified. This I view he failed to do. In particular
of the aftermath of 6 January he should have let Members of Congress to relax and discover what
really eventuated before placing pressure upon them to deal with certification, instead of voting
in the perception it were Trump supporters who were violent, etc.
Likewise, the question as to the validity of the California Ballots cannot be ignored where they
involve about 55 Electoral College votes. Neither so can the Vice President blatantly ignore the
self-professed criminal conduct of election FRAUD.
.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-voter-protection-not-idUSKBN27E2VH
QUOTE
The clip shared by Trump, McEnany and others starts around the 19:13 mark, when Biden
tells Pfeiffer and Lovett, “Secondly,
we’re in a situation where we
have put together—and you guys did it for President
Obama’s administration before this—we have put
together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter
fraud organization in the history of American politics. ”
END QUOTE
http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.
Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys
the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts,
documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
It must be clear that in my view VP Mike Pence had no ability to invoke the 12th Amendment
powers in the circumstances prevailing. To invoke certain constitutional powers this NEVER can
be to enforce FRAUD. As such, in my view VP Mike Pence lacked any constitutional powers to
invoke the 12th Amendment powers.
This then leaves the ordinary American with no alternative where the Courts so far failed to
resolve litigation as to then ensure that the constitutional provisions were appropriately complied
with.
.
QUOTE Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ
A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been
pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or
wrongfully affected his title to something.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Privy Council in Att Gen of Gambia v N'Jie (1961) AC 617
But the definition of James LJ is not to be regarded as exhaustive. Lord M R pointed out in Ex Parte Official
Receiver, re Reed Bowen and Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 at p178. The words person aggrieved are of wide
import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busy
body who is interfering in things that do not concern him; but they do include a person who has a grievance
because an order was made which prejudicially affects his interests.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)
Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you ought to have done,
and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes that you did.
END QUOTE
Voters had a right that the constitution would be obeyed and clearly VP Mike Pence had
announced that he would nevertheless persist to count the disputed Electoral College votes
regardless of the self-confessed FRAUD how they were obtained. The Courts failed to
appropriately resolve matters and some cases are still ongoing which left ordinary Americans
with no choice but in the circumstances TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS to
pursue to prevent VP Mike Pence to violate the constitution as he as I understood it had
announce to do by counting disputed Electoral college slates rather than to have the State
Legislatures to determine the legal validity of them.
Once the Capitol was used for intended unconstitutional conduct then I view it lost its
sovereignty,. This, as much as a private property owner acting in violation of the rule of law
cannot then nevertheless claim EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS as a property owner while openly
committing a serious criminal offence. Law enforcement authorities then would be entitled to
enter the property as to deal with any serious criminal conduct. In this case the People seeing the
courts failed to do so and the law enforcement authorities neither stepping in then they were left
no choice but to act themselves to protect their Republic. Those who entered the Capitol for this
purpose I view could be justified doing so.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences
committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to
which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in
conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to
change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in
modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by
an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do
not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs
in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the

citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
this Constitution.
END QUOTE
In my view, “NULLIFICATION” therefore could and should be applied against anyone who
acted to protect the Republic and sought to avoid a dangerous incident, irrespective if they
succeeded or not.
Obviously, there also persons who didn’t have the “motive” to uphold the constitution but who’s
reasons were to diminish the Republic and such were BLM/Antifa members. I do not view that
“NULLIFICATION” then is appropriate to be applied as their intention was as I understand it
to cause mayhem, destruction and death.
Once the entry into the Capitol eventuated I view for that also VP Mike Pence should have
abandoned the Joint session in that it became clear that despite his views there was a clear
dispute about the counting of Electoral College slates and he should ensure that whatever was
going to be done was appropriate in all the circumstances. This I view he failed to do. Various
Members of Congress announced to withdraw their objections even so they were not even aware
of the precise circumstances and indeed the FACTS. They may have become traumatise by the
incident and simply not in any condition to then have a FAIR and OPEN mind to consider
matters. And with Nancy Pelosi (apart of her in my view not having any legal standing to be a
Member of Congress let alone Speaker due to California legally invalid election) before the joint
session eventuating as I understood it to make clear that Joe Biden would be declared to be the
next president, she clearly never could have been of impartial mind as then the evidence sought
to be relied upon by those opposing the count was not even presented let alone heard.
QUOTE R v National Liquors Ltd. (1922) 2 AC at 156; (1922) ALL ER Rep at p 351
Its jurisdiction is to see that the inferior court has not exceeded its own, and for that very reason it is bound
not to interfere in what has been done within that jurisdiction for in doing so it would itself, in turn,
transgress the limits within its own jurisdiction of supervision, not of review, is confined. That supervision
goes to two points; one is the area of inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its
exercise; the other is the observance of the law in the course of its exercise.
END QUOTE
.
In my view, VP Mike Pence under the cover of pretending to comply with the provisions of
the constitution actually was violating the constitution.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
We must not, however, be unmindful of the fact that there can be no federal government without, to a large
extent, the sacrifice of some portion of state rights; and when the word "provinces" is used in this debate, I
ignore its existence altogether. We have been, as it were, chaffed out of our very existence. Those of us who
have spoken within the walls of this building, or who have spoken out of doors to our constituents, and have
endeavoured, in discussing the federal question, to take a strong view of the position in regard to the defence
of the rights of New South Wales, have been pulled to pieces, and called provincialists. I object, in connection
with the independent state of New South Wales-a state as independent as any in the world, even England
itself, so far as the freedom of our position is concerned-to the word "province." There may be something
more dignified in the use of the word "state." We are not going to become provinces. I do not think we
are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which those who have
gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal form of government. We
may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst we have endeavoured to put before the people of
New South Wales, in these resolutions, a sort of opiate, something assuring to their minds that in joining a
federal union we give up nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which I shall do
my utmost in Committee to strike out-

except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and
authority of the national federal government.
I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has given any clear
interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle upon which the basis of a
constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial rights and privileges of each colony shall be
preserved to each state but when you come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question of
the power of enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your
provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding.
END QUOTE
The Democrats are making known to Abolish the Electoral College and it seems that they desire
to totally vandalize the constitutional compact and this endangers the very EQUALITY the
Framers of the Constitution to assure that no matter what every State regardless of its size has the
same standing when it comes to the election of the President and not that the larger states could
combine and forever dictate who shall be president.
“…The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the
chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thomas Jefferson, Drafter of the United States Constitution
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/new-footage-shows-pro-trump-demonstrators-being-let-into-
capitol-orderly-protesting-dubious-electoral-certification/
QUOTE
New Footage Shows Pro-Trump Demonstrators Being Let Into
Capitol, Orderly Protesting Contested Electoral Certification
The fake news media spin machine has gone into high gear since Wednesday, painting
enthusiastic Trump supporters in and around the Capitol as domestic terrorists who
waged an insurrection against Congress.
However, new footage released on social media shows that this was not the case.
Protesters can be seen being let into Congress by Capitol Police, who may have been
ordered to stand down or perhaps just stood down when faced with thousands and
thousands of patriots.
One America News Network anchor and pro-Trump attorney Christina Bobb posted the
footage on Twitter:
Capitol police open doors for the protestors. They stand

aside and invite them inside. pic.twitter.com/OnSd3KGzz5
Trending: Ex-Soviet Leader Gorbachev: US Capitol Riot
“Planned in Advance, And It Is Clear by Whom”
— Christina Bobb (@christina_bobb) January 8, 2021
Journalist Jamie Dupree noted that what happened was an apparent breach in protocol
by Capitol police:
As someone who has worked at the US Capitol for well over

30 years – I am speechless watching this video. Capitol
Police are letting people just walk up the stairs into the
Rotunda. No security precautions. It's not a public entrance.
It's absolutely crazy. https://t.co/t7MTnaNJJ0
— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) January 8, 2021
Another picture shows many pro-Trump people in the Capitol lined up in orderly fashion
to make their peaceful protest in the Capitol against government overreach:
The first "coup" to involve orderly queueing

pic.twitter.com/xCNbtFSaQ4
— Ben Harris-Quinney #Brexit (@B_HQ) January 8, 2021
Certain grassroots activists are calling on President Trump to pardon individuals who
are charged with crimes as the deep state attempt to crucify patriotic supporters and put
down an uprising:
New footage makes clear that trump HAS to use his last
days to pardon those at the capitol. They were LET IN THE
DOOR by police.
Call WH and demand that trump pardon his supporters or
his kids wont ever see political office.
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414 pic.twitter.com/SDBLtUNHyE
— Wyatt (@Locksneedfartin) January 8, 2021
Big League Politics has reported on how the media has manipulated public opinion to
demonize protesters as a violent threat when in actuality they were the ones getting
brutalized and even killed for exercising their 1st Amendment rights:
The woman who was killed by police today during a

contentious pro-Trump rally in Washington D.C. has been
identified as Ashli Babbit, a 14-year veteran of the armed
services who served four terms with the Air Force…
KUSI News reported that Babbit’s husband described his
late wife as “a strong supporter of President Trump, and
was a great patriot to all who knew her.”

Cops followed up the killing of Babbit by punishing Trump
supporters on the Washington D.C. streets to enforce a
curfew arbitrarily imposed by Mayor Muriel Bowser…
Big League Politics has reported on how President Donald
Trump’s followers are starting to jettison their “back the
blue” stance after law enforcement has repeatedly punished
them while allowing ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter
terrorists to run the streets…
U.S. patriots are learning painful lessons about who really
has their back. Unfortunately it seems that law enforcement
does not, with cops regularly targeting citizens for
exercising their 1st Amendment right to free speech. Ashli
Babbit’s name must be used as a rallying cry as the fight for
freedom intensifies.
The truth is often lost in the fog of war, and these circumstances are no different. The
globalist establishment is going to use the confusion to push for Draconian authoritarian
responses. The Republic may not survive four years of President-imposed Joe Biden.
END QUOTE
In the circumstances described by the comments it appears to me that Ashli may very well have
been allowed to entry the capitol and hence in that regard to be deemed a visitor.
Then there are those who entered who pursued their issues, as they did:
The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v.
Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
What we appear to have, as far as I can gather from the various posted articles is that there were
various groups of people entering the Capitol.
.Group A
 A group of people who were allowed to enter and peacefully waiting in line to express
their views regarding the certification, etc.. In my view those officers who let them in
may have considered it better to let them peaceful enter, even if not being the official
entrance.
Group B
 A group of people who pursued to enter to protect their constitutional rights to prevent a
self professed criminal to be certified to become the President.
The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
Group C
 A group of people who were determine to use the kind of “Reichstaf Fire” kind of event
to possibly kill as many Members of Congress to ensure that whomever was left over
would turn against President Donald J Trump and go after him.
Group D
 We also may have others not within the above groups.
I understand that Ashli who was killed allegedly had security behind her as well as in front of her
and, as such, there appears to have been no imminent threat to use deadly force against her.
Indeed, for the same security that were near her could have been killed instead.
While those trigger happy officials may have been unaware that some people were as visitors
allowed to enter, nevertheless their lawful entry into the Capitol cannot be ignored.
I understand that there were lawmakers pursuing to have those who entered the Capitol to be
executed. Well fancy this to be lawfully entering the Capitol and then to be executed because
some others may have become involved in unlawful conduct.
Is that meaning that with Joe Biden self-admitted criminal conduct and Senator Kamala Harris
having condoned, supported, approved and incited murderous riots to continue even AFTER the
election then they too should be executed as instigator of criminal conduct? And, then why not
ever member of Congress who have in some way or another become accessories to those crimes?
As far as I understand it the Capitol is “sovereign” entity as if a country on its own, however, it
should be understood that this “sovereign” can only exist as long as the members of Congress are
acting within the confines of the rule of law, so within constitutional context. Where then the
joint session had prior announcement that VP Mike Pence was unlawfully exercising his alleged
12th Amendment powers, despite being requested in writing by at least one State not to certify
the Electoral College slates, and California also being unlawful as well as there being litigation
on foot, then I view every American was entitled to seek to prevent this unlawful, indeed
unconstitutional conduct to proceed.
Again:
The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
When the judicature fails to act appropriately, when there is a gross violation of the constitution,
when you have a presidential candidate voluntarily admitting to have stated:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-voter-protection-not-idUSKBN27E2VH
QUOTE
The clip shared by Trump, McEnany and others starts around the 19:13 mark, when Biden
tells Pfeiffer and Lovett, “Secondly,
we’re in a situation where we
have put together—and you guys did it for President
Obama’s administration before this—we have put
together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter
fraud organization in the history of American politics. ”
END QUOTE
And yet despite this the former Attorney-General William Barr appeared to have ignored this and
the FBI failing to investigate this where in fact FRAUD was established and indeed various
persons now have admitted to this, then the rule of law in that regard is no more and I view it was
left to Americans to step in and pursue that the embedded legal provisions in the Constitution
were upheld.
.
Where one self confessed person referred to legislators and judges being her clients for election
fraud then surely to disregard this in itself should be deemed to make each and every person
doing so an, accessory to the crimes that were committed. Hypothetically, a person making clear
to be some agent for a foreign enemy country and then the Chief Justice nevertheless will swear
this person in as President, very well aware that this could result to the demise of the Republic.
In my view, the Chief Justice has absolutely no legal powers to swear in Joe Biden as President
and doing so I view make him guilty as an accessory to the crimes and to undermine his oath of
office and betray the constitution. The same with swearing in Kamala Harris.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/defense-officials-worry-about-insider-attack-at-
inauguration-guard-troops-to-be-vetted-01610937635
Defense officials worry about insider attack at inauguration; Guard troops to be vetted
In my view it is the duty of every American to uphold the legal principles embedded in the
constitution and regardless if they are members of the FBI, National Guard, military or else. Each
and everyone failing to uphold their oath to uphold the constitution in my view are TRAITORS.
Likewise, with each and every Member not only of Congress but of any State legislature.
In my view if you side with self-professed criminals and/or TRAITERS then you should expect
to be held legally accountable for this.
.
When it comes to the “sovereignty” of the Congress this only can apply for so far the Congress
acts within the bounds of its limitations. When Sen Joe Manchin is announcing to go against
Members of Congress who opposed the 25th Amendment to be used against President Donald J
Trump then by this he violates the “sovereignty” of Congress because member have the right to
vote as they desire provided they are not doing so maliciously to violate the constitution.
What we therefore have is that the “sovereignty” of the Congress is at times applicable and other
times it is not.
.
Those who were allowed to peacefully enter the Capitol and queued in a peaceful manner (Group
A) then were entitled to the protection of the Congress. They were not violating any rules
regardless if officers allowed them to enter through otherwise restricted access, where the
officers held in the circumstances it was better to allow peaceful entry not knowing what on earth
was going on outside. Those officers in my view acted rather commendable to seek to avoid
tensions.
Then there is Group B, which may have sought and did entre for the purpose to oppose the Joint
Session to be used to certify a self-confessed criminal to become President. In my view the
failures of the courts, DOJ, FBI, etc, could be deemed to have justified for them to do so. After
all to expect Americans to silently allow not only their election to be stolen but having a self-
professed Senator involved in deathly riots to be sown in as Vice President would not be what
the legal principles embedded in the constitution stands for. Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
should have been arrested with relevant charges but somehow those who were to do so ignored
their laid up duties and willing to stand by to allow this violation of constitutional principles to
go on.
In my view persons of Group B in the circumstances prevailing were entitled to pursue what they
held appropriate to ensure the legal principles embedded in the Constitution would be upheld.
Hence, I view that the Capital in that issue cannot be treated as having a “sovereign” status
because it was the place of crimes being committed against the constitution.
We then have Group C. This group appeared to be hell bend to destroy the Capital not for
purpose of to prevent any unconstitutional certification but rather to possibly kill as many
members of Congress and whomever as to use a “Reichstag Fire” kind of event as to overthrow
a duly elected President Donald J Trump and incite hatred towards him that even his own party
members would turn against him. In that regard they succeeded to some extent. In my view utter
fools of members of Congress precisely did to fall for this. For Group C the Capital was the
target for insurrection, etc, and no other purpose and then the Capitol must be deemed to be a
“sovereign” entity.

Their aim was to unlawfully cause as much mayhem, damage, destruction and even death. The
couldn’t be considered to be law abiding citizen to seek to uphold the legal principles embedded
in the constitution. Far from it, many were members of groups such as BLM/Antifa determined
to continue the path of damages, destruction and death they were known for during 2020.
And, while some lawmakers may pursue for the death penalty, then why not likewise hold them
accountable for the same where their silence (if they didn’t speak out against it) during the 2020
riots and the many murders in a way was the very bases why the murderous riots continued and
now into the Capitol.
.
Much is argued that people should respect the Capitol and in ordinary ways Americans are doing
so, but where was the respect towards the homes and lives of Americans when Members of
congress were deafening silent
Lawmakers who had no respect for the rights of Americans and let the murderous riots
continue cannot then demand that their House (Capitol) is respected or their lives. When
you excuse and cover up murderous riots because it suits your political purposes and even
perhaps funded it then you can expect it to so to say knock on your door to give you some of the
same medicine.
Group D There are those who may have been drawn in not intending to commit any criminal
activity but simply followed others, even so not involving in criminal conduct themselves.
What is now in my view the situation that purportedly self-professed criminals are to be sworn in
to the highest offices and without having been legally or politically accountable. In my view no
American, regardless of any position, could stand by and allow this to eventuate. Indeed the
Chief Justice should execute a citizen arrest rather than swearing in Joe Biden. Because the
inauguration is the end goal of the election fraud Joe Biden professed and Kamala Harris was
pursuing with her “movement” then this constitute a continued criminal conduct that any person
can execute a citizen arrest. Likewise so, any other person present I view is a coward and
disgrace his/her oath to uphold the constitution when failing to act to protect and uphold the
constitution.
In my view, the MSM (mainstream media) and Big Tech having worked hand in hand to prevent
voters to be aware to relevant details so as to make an “informed” decision who to vote for also
should be charged with being accomplice of the crimes. This as the concealment of details of
murderous riots was to deny voters relevant details.
With Big Tech I view any usage of “http” and “https” should be banned, as they misused and
abused their powers. And likewise the 12 September 2021 allows for the confiscation of all
terrorism regarding the election of media outlets and Big Tech companies as a way to sell of for
compensation of those who suffered from the murderous riots.
In my view the FBI should immediately without delay arrest both Joe Biden and Kamala
Harris, as now that she resigned her seat in the Senate she cannot hide behind the
privileges of the Senate either.
Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will resign her Senate seat on Monday
(https://twitter.com/CBSNews)
https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-committed-six-violations-of-the-constitution-alan-
dershowitz_3659455.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=
mb-2021-01-17
House Committed Six Violations of the Constitution During Impeachment: Alan
Dershowitz
Impeachments are in my view purely political issues and as President Donald J Trump within his
constitutional rights pursued appropriate conduct by the courts to deal with election FRAUD and
so admitted by Joe Biden to be involved in it then this never can be deemed to be a ground of
impeachment.
The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v.
Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
Regretfully I view that the military now should take over, and prevent a self confessed criminal
of election fraud and a woman who is a self professed supporter to incite murderous riots to be
allowed to take the highest office in the republic and restore order and support the President to
ensure that any election will be without FRAUD.
Any general who refuses to act to protect the Republic I view must be deemed to violate his oath
of office and so to uphold the constitution and be court martialled.
One cannot have the military to stand by idle and somehow hand the keys of nuclear weapons to
a self-confessed criminal.
Anyone who tries to claim that the constitution demand that nevertheless Joe Biden is entitled to
become President simply doesn’t in my view understand what the constitution stands for.
Trump approves Emergency Declaration in Washington (The Epoch Times)
As there is already a State of Emergency declared I view that the National Guard and the military
therefore should act to protect the Republic and uphold the constitution, and for this arrest both
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and anyone, including the Chief Justice, if they attempt to proceed
with swearing in of self-confessed criminals.
In my view, it would be more appropriate for the FBI to immediately arrest both Joe Biden and
Kamala Harris and place them on trial. I view that various members of Congress also should be
so and not to overlook Mike Pence. Failing the FBI to do so anyone else I view would be entitled
to perform a citizen arrest, etc, as to uphold the rule of law.
Even so I have never been in the USA and as such never entitled to become President, all I need
to do is to fabricate some birth certificate and become a candidate in the presidential election and
scram to the rooftops I am committing a crime against the constitution but nevertheless the Chief
Justice will never the less swear me in as the successful presidential candidate. How absurd is
this kind of system where even a third world Banana Republic would do better?
Breaking: Mike Huckabee Floats Impeaching Kamala Harris for Doing This 1
Thing in my view her incitement of murderous riots should be also grounds for
impeachment. And so her bailing out as a Senator of BLM murderous rioters.
One need to return to the organics and legal principles embedded in of the 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!)

20210118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To President Donald J Trump-VP Pence, FBI, NG, Military & Others

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20210118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To President Donald J Trump-VP Pence, FBI, NG, Military & Others

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

President Donald J Trump (Australia) 18-1-2021

White House, USA

Cc: VP Mike Pence @VP

I like to draw your attention to the following:

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

p1 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

And, as I stated in my previous writings:

p2 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Lest apply this to Senator Kamala Harris:

interviewer: ...... protest still happening..

p3 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Sanity will be nowhere, as madness will have taken over.

p4 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

With VP Pence the following set out may be better understood.

p5 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p7 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p8 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Capitol police open doors for the protestors. They stand

As someone who has worked at the US Capitol for well over

The first "coup" to involve orderly queueing

The woman who was killed by police today during a

p10 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p13 18-1-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Trump approves Emergency Declaration in Washington (The Epoch Times)

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

Potrebbero piacerti anche