z3

ISSUE: 20190225- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 33- Contemplated theft by acquisition-etc

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

* Gerrit, contemplated theft by acquisition, how is that?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, firstly our constitution provides that the Commonwealth may
acquire property of any State on just terms.

The word property is not be considered to relate just to the existence of a piece of land owned by
the State but must be considered to be anything that is possessed by the State. If for example the
Commonwealth were to obtain a certain property such as the rights of a State even if not being a
parcel of land then nevertheless the Commonwealth must provide just compensation.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK)

QUOTE
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or
person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has
power to make laws;
END QUOTE

As I understand it the transcript of Fejo v The Northern Territory Government HCA 58; 1998
CLR96; 156 ALR 721; 72 ALJR 1442 (10 September 1998):

Justice Michael Kirby 1998 High Court Ruling

"No -- One But No -- One, Not even the Queen Could Trespass or Take Property Held
in "Fee Simple" -- It Equates to Theft."

If for example the commonwealth garnishes water rights to which it has no constitutional powers
other than within Section 100 for the purpose of navigation as environment is not within its
legislative powers nor can be obtained by treaty powers with other foreign states, this as
otherwise Section 51 would be nullified, then clearly to acquire anything that falls within the
meaning of property must be appropriately compensated.
As such, if the Commonwealth were to acquire say a parcel of land it must therefore also
compensate the property holder (The State) regarding any value that is under the land parcel. For
example if there is a gold mine under that parcel of land, and keep in mind the parcel of land
could be hundreds of square kilometres, then being it gold or other minerals, precious metals,
etc, found , even after the acquisition must be compensated for.
As such, where the Commonwealth acquires say a right that ordinary is property of the State it
must for this provide appropriate compensation in just terms, if this acquisition is lawful within
constitutional terms in the first place.

We then have:
p1 25-2-2019 © 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 of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK)
QUOTE
106 Saving of Constitutions
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
Constitution of the State.
END QUOTE

This means that the states are created within Section 106 SUBJECT TO THIS
CONSTITUTION.

This then implies all legal principles embedded in the constitution are applicable to the States.
.

https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia

The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.

END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

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

END QUOTE

.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
p2 25-2-2019 © 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
 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

What this means is that the Colonial constitutions no longer remained to be in the way they were
applicable prior to federation but upon federation became constitutions of the States SUBJECT
TO THIS CONSTITUTION, meaning the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK).

This means that the States no longer had any sovereign powers to willy nilly amend their own
constitutions but could only do so by State referendum. It means that the IMPARTIAL
administration of justice as referred to such as in the Victorian Letters Patent published in the
gazette on 2-1-1901 to establish the administration of justice give s the Supreme Court of each
State the powers to on constitutional grounds nullify any State constitution.

Because the electors of each State now had the sovereign powers to amend their constitution by
State Referendum any purported alteration of the State constitution (SUBJECT TO THIS
(Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) CONSTITUTION THEN THE
States arfe stealing the sovereign powers of the state electors whenever it purports to amend the
constitution without State referendum.

This fort example is where the State are legislating to refer legislative powers to the
Commonwealth, which French J (Later French CJ of the High Court of Australia) made clear
was not a power within Sub Section 51(xxxvii) of the constitution as this only provides for the
Commonwealth to accept a (valid) referred legislative power to the Commonwealth. The actual
p3 25-2-2019 © 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
constitutional provision is Section 123 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK).
For this as an example the 2001 Queensland constitution is a nullity as it is not a constitution that
was approved by State referendum.
Neither can any State create another level of government in violation to the constitutional system
implied by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

In fact the High Court of Australia has no judicial powers to make any declaration or a
judgment that conflicts with the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
.
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

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
p4 25-2-2019 © 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
 the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE

And let us not ignore:

HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

Therefore the State Supreme Courts are not within the legislative powers of the State Parliament
for so far as to its jurisdiction as the State Parliaments are not like the Colonies as they were
sovereign parliaments.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

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

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE

As such each time any Government pursues Bills before the Parliament to unconstitutionally
refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth without approval by State elector’s referendum
and/or otherwise interfere with the rights of its citizens in violation of the constitution then they
are trespassing upon the electors and/or citizens’ rights. If a particular elector and/or citizen
rights are affected by this then I view it has a right to sue for trespass, etc.
CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 197 Destroying or damaging property
classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s197.html
Victorian Current Acts. [Index] [Table] ... CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 197. Destroying ... (a) his purpose or one of
his purposes is to destroy or damage property; or.

Destruction or Damage to Property in Victoria - Leanne Warren and ...

https://leannewarren.com.au/destruction-or-damage-to-property-in-victoria/

p5 25-2-2019 © 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
Jun 20, 2018 - In Victoria, it is an offence to intentionally cause damage to property ... You could also be charged
with an alternate offence of 'wilful damage' if the alleged damage to the ... [7] Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s
9(1)(c).

Theft and property damage | Victoria Legal Aid

https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal.../criminal.../theft-and-property-damage
Dec 17, 2013 - Information about theft and property damage offences, and possible ... Property damage offences,
also known as wilful or criminal damage ...

Wilful Damage - Doogue + George

https://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/offences/wilful-damage
Feb 1, 2019 - Do you need help with a charge of Wilful Damage? ... “SAC Statistics – Summary Offences Act 1966
(Vic) : s 9 – wilfully damage, injure or ...
[DOC]

Summary Offences Act 1966

www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/...nsf/.../66-7405a095.doc
Jul 1, 2008 - Part I—Provisions Applicable Throughout Victoria. Division 1—Public order ... 9 Wilful destruction,
damage etc. of property. 9A Repealed.

7.5.4.1.1 - Bench Notes: Criminal Damage - Judicial College of Victoria

www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/5189.htm
Criminal damage is an offence under Crimes Act 1958 s197(1). A number of related but discrete offences have also
been created by s197 and the surrounding ...

Malicious damage | Australian Institute of Criminology

https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp120/malicious-damage
Common forms of malicious damage include vandalism, such as breaking windows and knocking over ... Further,
the commission of a malicious damage act may involve some risk for the vandals themselves. ..... Target location—
Geelong, Vic.

Malicious Damage of Property - Armstrong Legal

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/.../malicious-damage-to-property
WILL I GET A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FROM A MALICIOUS DAMAGE ... for an malicious damage to
property charge: As a result of amended legislation this ...

Likewise the Commonwealth who accepts a purported referral of legislative powers of any or all
states without the relevant state(s) having held a
State referendum to permit the referral of legislative powers then can be deemed as a party to the
harm inflicted upon the elector/citizen.

* You really are going through it all very carefully, aren’t you?
**#** Well I hope that even the so to say brain dead are going to understand this, albeit I doubt
it.
Anyhow, when either the Commonwealth or any State legislate for example that
companies/banks are to hand over monies that it claims are dormant held by companies then
within the context of acquisition the Commonwealth/State must provide just compensation.
.
To give an example:
I obtained through my (now) wife’s lawyers Enduring Power of Attorney and using this
appointed her lawyers to sell a property. The lawyers settled the property as I had instructed and
required by law including any charges outstanding at the time such as for water, etc. However,
about 190 years later I discovered that the water company had wrongly claimed monies at
settlementwhich already had been paid. Instead of the water company rfefunding the monies
through the lawyersw or for that to my wife, who still remained a customer of this company on
the same address atwhich she resided at the time of settlement this company nevertheless

p6 25-2-2019 © 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
claimed they didn’t know the address of my wife and so handed the monies over to the SRO
(State Revenue Office). This was a settlement in 2000!
The SRO however has refused to provide just compensation.
.
What should be understood is that just compensation must imply that the value of monies at the
time of the settlement must be remaining an equal value of today. As such, considering inflation,
etc, the about $218 at the time might now be more than $300. This the SRO doesn’t allow for.
Effectively this too is theft by acquisition in violation to the legal principles embedded in the
constitution.
.
There is more to it!
* I like to know that!
**#** Because the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) provides for:
QUOTE
(xx) foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations
formed within the limits of the Commonwealth;
END QUOTE

QUOTE
(xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking
extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the
incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;

(xiv) insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance

extending beyond the limits of the State concerned;
END QUOTE

Then clearly where a State doesn’t have any State bank operating within the boundaries of the
relevant State then it cannot legislate as to any interest chargeable by its own entities or delegate
such powers to entities operating on and/or for it.

Neither can it acquire any alleged dormant monies of any corporation and/or non-state
bank/insurance company, this as they fall within the powers of the Commonwealth.

And the Commonwealth if it acquires such alleged dormant monies then must compensate the
lawful entitled person in just terms, meaning that the value cannot be deemed to be reduced by
inflation, etc, but must be compensated on what any monies at the time would not have at current
value. To do otherwise would means the Commonwealth could effectively steal the rights of any
person entitled to the monies by delaying any repayment. Likewise the States for so far it acts
within its constitutional power of acquisition must compensate the right full entitled person with
today’s value of any monies. With the SRO to merely refund the monies of say about $218 as
was in 2000 would mean it by theft obtained interest, etc, of monies and robbed my wife of any
benefits.

In my view the relevant Minister responsible for the SRO by this commits a trespass by stealing
the entitlements/rights of my wife, in various ways.

The Commonwealth for example are stealing the rights of citizens when it erroneously exercise
jurisdiction through the courts as a federal issue when in fact the purported legislation it relies
upon as having referred legislative powers and so exercised by the Commonwealth through it
federal jurisdiction neve r was constitutionally valid.
.
p7 25-2-2019 © 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 give an example. I applied for and obtained that one of my daughters became a Ward of the
Supreme Court of Victoria. (Not being a Ward of the State as that is a different legal position.)
The Family Court of Australia wrongly interfered with this as old English law makes clear that
when a child is a ward of the Court then there can be no jurisdiction to a foreign court to interfere
with this. As such it trespassed upon my rights to have the rights of my daughter being a Ward of
the Court to be exercised only by the Supreme Court of Victoria. In fact I specifically applied at
the time to have my daughter to be a Ward of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was granted,
to prevent the Family Court of Australia to interfere with my rights as a custodian parent, etc.
Likewise any person who was not in a marriage cannot be forced to litigate in the Family Court
of Australia as the legislative jurisdiction, this as it unduly causes a person to litigate within a
foreign jurisdiction (not being State jurisdiction). It should be clear that without an approved
State referendum (Section 123) the State cannot upon its own Parliamentarian unilateral decision
Refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth as it affects the judicial powers of the State
Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court is part of the constitution and not under any sovereign
parliamentarian legislative power. Likewise the Governor of the State can only appoint judicial
officers to exercise judicial powers within the ambit of an IMPARTIAL administration of
justice and any purported judicial decision by alleged judicial officers who were not
appointed/commissioned by the Governor of the State is and remains to be ULTRA
VIRES/NULL AND VOID. For example the purported Infringement Court is not a court within
the ambit of the constitution as it is not a court that allows the accused to be heard.
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE

Hence, where any purported court denies an accused to be heard than it is not a valid court within
the meaning of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
* Is there more to it all?
**#** Yes there is but for now I think you might get the message! Whenever any State or the
Commonwealth pursues to acquire the rights of a person (including any property of monetary
value) without just compensation then this I view is theft, indeed contemplated theft as the
State/Commonwealth then earns interest, etc, from monies not intending to pass on to the right
full person entitled to it. And this is really the very intention of the actors involved. They are
trying to enrich themselves in violation of the provisions of the constitution and this can be
deemed to be a conspiracy to trespass by theft upon a person’s rights
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!)

p8 25-2-2019 © 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