z3

ISSUE: 20190316- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 37- senator Fraser Anning -etc

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

The petition to remove senator Fraser Anning has reached over one million signatures. The senator seen
attending a gun show less than 48 hours after the Christchurch terror attack.

* Gerrit, what is your view about Senator Fraser Anning?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, obviously I have heard about him and about some of his
statements which many either agree or disagree with but I happen to see a picture of him being
hit at the left back of his head with an egg. Now to me this is in itself a form of terrorism where
an elected member of parliament is attacked by someone who might not even be able to vote and
yet takes the law into his own hands to show his disapproval. This is precisely the kind of
terrorism that instigate other terrorism. This as people will find that instead of seeing Senator
Fraser Anning as a victim his fellow Members of parliament indeed the leaders of major parties
are somehow attacking for his statements.
I didn’t agree with John Howard to unconstitutionally invade Iraq and participate in the mass
murder of so many but surely I wouldn’t engage in physically attacking him to score a point.
Instead I tried on 4 occasions to file an application within Section 75 of the constitution but I
view the judges were traitors to deny my applications to be filed to prevent an unconstitutional
invasion. Still I acted lawfully.
.
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

So are we now going to hit Scott Morrison or Bill Shorten with eggs merely because we may not
agree with what they are stating?
.
The issue is not if you agree or disagree with what Senator Fraser Anning stated but that we
cannot and never must accept that a Member of Parliament can be physically attacked for making
a statement he/she is entitled to make.

We have got people of various different religions making clear that it is ok to kill non-believers
and somehow this is permissible but for a Senator to speak out to what his views are somehow is
sufficient to warrant a physical attack upon a Member of Parliament? Well, soon we may find
this to escalate in violence against other politicians and well thank the idiots who somehow seem
to excuse this attack upon Senator Fraser Anning.
The very reason we have religious motivated killings is precisely that too often one was
subjected to a doctrine not to upset those associated with the same religion. This instead of
p1 19-3-2019 © 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
making clear that those who spread the doctrine of violence and/or support it are equally at fault
for the spread of violence.
I personally find it not only absurd but insulting when some female leader is donning a hijab or
other religious clothing when not being a follower of such religion to which it is associated as
this I view is to make a mockery of the religious conduct of others.
(https://dailystormer.name/traitor-female-new-zealand-pm-dons-hijab-hates-white-people/)
* Is it not showing a respect to that religion?
**#** In my view it is mocking the religion. In my view if you do not belong to a particular
religion then do not dress up as if you are. There are ample of women who are forced to wear the
hijab and so denied equality, whereas others prefer to wear them. In my view a politicians who
wears the hijab merely for show is an insult to the women who are forced against their will to
wear it. There appears however to be no criticism against this Prime Minister and yet when
politician Pauline Hanson did the same in the Parliament she was berated for doing so, this even
so she made a point that the safety of all persons in the Parliament is at risk if someone can be
hidden under a hijab enter the Parliament and say donate some suicide pack. This person who
attacked Senator Fraser Anning in my view was a terrorist because he in that sense attacked our
democracy.
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:
I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be
established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the
regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia.
END QUOTE

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
There can be no doubt as to the desirability of conferring unlimited powers on the Federal Parliament to
prevent the introduction of foreign coloured races.
END QUOTE

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

And

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
QUOTE 18-3-2019 EMAIL
Fwd: Scott Morrison: Support Senator Fraser Anning
People

 Carol P <prendyspot@gmail.com>
p2 19-3-2019 © 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
 
 18 Mar at 11:08 AM

BCC

 inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

Hide
Message body

To:

News Report today:

A petition calling for the removal of Senator Fraser Anning from parliament over his response to the
NZ mosque terrorist attacks, has received over 800K signatures, the most in Australian history.

Can we get many more to sign a petition calling on Scott Morrison to support Senator Fraser Anning and his
right to freedom of speech and the right to defend himself from attack?

Help us share this everywhere. Let's show the world that Australians are not all lawless criminals that support
unwarranted physical attacks and abuse for holding an opinion.

https://www.change.org/p/scott-morrison-support-senator-fraser-anning
END QUOTE 18-3-2019 EMAIL

ALERT: Tulsi Gabbard Demolishes "The View" co-host Meghan McCain TBTV240,408 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HmE0fPCvUc

Instead of denouncing the attack upon a fellow parliamentarian both Scott Morrison and bill
Shorten seem to pursue Senator Fraser Anning instead;
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/03/17/fraser-anning-egg-boy-
video/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020190318
PM Scott Morrison says Anning deserves to be hit with ‘full force of the law’
QUOTE
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has urged police to apply “the full force of the law” to
Queensland Senator Fraser Anning after he was filmed punching a teenage boy who
cracked an egg on his head.
END QUOTE

While both Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten facing a federal election might be more concerned to
wow electors to vote for them and so willing to denounce Senator Fraser Anning, this is the kind
of blatant ignorance to safety and security for parliamentarians. Now others may consider they
too can physically attack a Member of Parliament but then it could be far worse and perhaps
even end up in the killing of a parliamentarian. This is precise the conduct of politicians of the
past to excuse violence and now we ended up with mass murders.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47615231
Utrecht shooting: 'Three dead' after attack on tram
QUOTE

Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said the incident was "deeply disturbing".

"An act of terror is an attack on our civilisation [and] on our tolerant and open society," he said.

p3 19-3-2019 © 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
END QUOTE

Here we have one Prime Minister deploring the use of violence and we have in Australia Prime
Minister Scot Morrison who seem to even if not intending to do so to be an apologist for a person
using violence.
The fact that Senator Fraser Anning is a Senator but not a member of the Federal Government is
another thing PM Scott Morrison seems to ignore. It is in my view not his call to pursue charges
against the victim of the attack being Senator Scott Morrison but rather the President of the
Senate should pursue that the attack upon Senator Fraser Anning could be deemed CONTEMPT
OF THE (Federal) PARLIAMENT and hence it is for the Senate to deal with this matter.
.
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:
I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be
established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the
regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia.
END QUOTE

While it is claimed the Federal Government abandoned the white Australian policy it is however
that the Federal Government has no right to undermine the legal principles embedded in the
constitution. As I often made clear I grew up opposing racism but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I
am bound to explain the true meaning and application of the constitution regardless it may be
contrary to my own personal views. Indeed if we had judges doing the same we may have far
less violence but in my view the courts are so corrupt that judges in my view far too often use
their personal views in matters and by this deny a party appearing before the judge of JUSTICE.
They too by this are promoting, even if not intending to do so, that People take the law into their
own hands.
On 4 August 2018 I witnessed how an Aboriginal woman was trying to harm an Aboriginal man
in Preston McDonalds store and the manager of the store frantically calling the police because
this woman was using a large solder iron as a weapon. I then intervened to request the woman to
leave the store and well she called me twice WHITE BOY, this even so I was much older than
her as a senior citizen. I that evening provided a written report of the matter to Chief
Commissioner Mr Graham Ashton and that one of the police officers seems to be more interested
in checking out my details then the woman causing the violence. Yet, to my knowledge the
Preston Police did absolutely nothing to hold this woman accountable for her racism against me.
In my view she easily could have killed this Aboriginal man (Man who appeared to be of
Aboriginal heritage as it appeared to me)
Let me be clear about it the murder of anyone is terrible and deplorable and the fact that likely
they were Muslims to me doesn’t alter the fact that some reportedly 50 people were denied their
right to life. The last we need is for politicians to make it cheap for political point scoring. It is
their conduct and that of judges who cause that there are people who failing to have politicians
and the courts to uphold the rule of law then decide to take matters into their own hands. It is the
gross failure of the systems that is corrupted to the core that is the real cause, as I so often have
written about.
No matter if one utterly dislike comments of any particular politician one should never directly
and/or indirectly present a view that it is alright top use violence against another person let alone
to a Member of Parliament.
As I indicated the Victorian Police rather having charged the Aboriginal woman for her violence
in a public place and for racism seems to appease the woman not to have her charged and
ignoring my right not to be racial abused.
I know too well from conducting my special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE
ALWAYS PREVAIL® how some people gave me the understanding that they might do better
p4 19-3-2019 © 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
not just to commit suicide but in the process kill as many other persons as to make clear why
they committed such heinous act.
In my view the Bourke Street mass killing (20-1-2017) is a clear example where politicians so to
say were falling over themselves to claim sympathy and yet each and every one ignored my 6
months earlier warning about the lack of security of Bourke Street Mall and could facilitate mass
murder.

What we now might be faced with is that others will now concentrate upon physical attacks upon
politicians. PM Scott Morrison might perhaps hold the view that Senator Fraser Anning will soon
be gone and so political point scoring might assist him in the upcoming federal election but the
long term harm to other Members of Parliament ought to have been his concern.

Whatever Senator Fraser Anning was stating about immigration was well within his right
regardless if one agrees or disagrees with his views as our federal constitution embedded the
principles Senator Fraser Anning I understand was expressing. It is not for leaders of political
parties to undermine the legal principles embedded in the constitution as by doing this they are
the constitutional terrorist. As much as judges are who defy constitutional embedded legal
principles and hand down decisions in violation to what the constitution provides for.
* How can the politicians really get rid of the WHITE AUSTRALIA policy embedded in the
constitution as a legal principle?
**#** A referendum is the only option. But then we have the purported Racial Discrimination
Act 1975 which itself is in my view unconstitutional. This is the problem with politicians and
judges they lack appropriate training to understand/comprehend constitutional issues and then
they mouth themselves off about something beyond their comprehension and the result is that
some person or persons might then decide to use force instead. Well so far reportedly 50
innocent people killed is what the result is from this. Any government can increase the legal
provisions by another avalanche of legal provisions but the truth is criminals are in fact assisted
by gun control because it means their victims likely have less ability to defend themselves. And
as I have explained the failure of the courts and the police to hold offenders legally accountable
means that certain people decide well if the politicians, the courts and the police are not going to
address issues appropriately then I might as well do it myself. It is in my understanding the sheer
frustration that results often in mass killings.
* Is your view that instead of mountains of further legislative provisions it would be more
productive if politicians, government, police and the courts were more tuned to deal with matters
appropriately and seek by this to avoid the frustration causing some people to act violently?
**#** Let me use an example. We have where a man who might have done absolutely no wrong
on merely his wife’s fabricated allegations can be by ex parte court orders denied to return to his
house. I am too well aware of this occurring for decades. Then such a man denied to see his
children, etc, then becomes very frustrated seeing the courts as the enemy. I recall a case where I
sat in the public gallery and a man was self-represented and well the judge was on various
occasions adjourning the hearing because of how this man was very agitated. Then suddenly in
one incident I called out from the public gallery to the man to sit down. He did. The trial judge
then had the clerk of court asking me to assist the man at the bar table, and I accepted. After than
the man calmed down and no further agitation of the man eventuated. The trial judge made clear
she was going to dismiss all his applications but since I was at the bar table his demeanor
changed dramatically and she now would grant his applications for access with his children, etc.
* His frustration was causing his demeanor to be un-ruling?

p5 19-3-2019 © 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
**#** That is correct. Once I was at the bar table he totally calmed down. It also made it a lot
easier for them to know I was not some vulture trying to make money out of them as my services
were for free.
*.Did the government pay you for your expenses, etc?
**#** Absolutely not. Look at it this way when some person gives me the understanding wanting
to b low up buildings and killing in the process as many persons as possible then I can hardly
stand by to let this eventuate. I have absolutely no doubt that soon or later such mass killing will
eventuate where likely thousands of people might end up being killed in the process. I have
warned against this but to no avail. We need not just lawyers reviewing the legal processes, etc,
but we need persons like myself who understand why people might be inclined to commit mass
murder or for that any murder to review the legal processes and the authorities conduct.
*. As I understand what you are communicating is to reduce the likelihood of injustice and less
people might end up being so frustrated to commit mass murder?
**#** That is correct. As I indicated this former police officer directed an employee to trespass
upon my property and caused considerable damages and he indicated in writing mind you that
the chief commissioner of police Mr Graham Ashton would do nothing against him. To me this
implies that he might have been directly or indirectly working for Chief Commissioner of Police
Mr Graham Ashton, when indeed so far he refused to delegate my complaint to a divisional
commander to pursue an impartial investigation. Because since 2017 I exposed the rot involving
the Victorian Police I for one have the understanding that this trespassing and destruction was a
deliberate target upon me. So to say a payback.
*.so your view is that instead the courts having just lawyers reviewing matters and protecting
their own as does the police there should be a proper review of the entire system involving
persons like yourself who will not be swayed with misplaced alliances for those who deny
JUSTICE?
**#** That is correct.
*.Do you support the WHITE AUSTRALIA policy personally?
**#** I have never expressed my personal views in this regard. It is also a much misconceived
policy, this as the Framers of the Constitution were not at all against people of other races but
simply sought to preserve the so called Western culture. They understood, at least in my view,
that mixing cultures will end up with trouble. And the violence we now are experiences underline
this. There was nothing wrong with people of colour to enter Australia and assimilate with the
general community. It is when you end up with enclaves where the ordinary rule of law no longer
is applicable that it becomes a problem. People following a religion like Muslims do at the time
were not an issue where they assimilated in ordinary community conduct, regardless of their
private religious customs and traditions. That the Framers of the Constitution made clear. It is the
barbaric conduct they opposed. The same you could claim in regard of other religious followers.
Indeed they made clear they didn’t want the religious strife that at the time existed in the United
Kingdom to eventuate in Australia, hence subsection 51(xxvi) for this also.
*.So the police allowing reverse racism in your view is also a problem?
**#** That is correct. They are so to say siding with racism while claiming to condone it when
others get involved in it. There was absolutely no doubt by me that the senior police officer was
after me to be charged just that the video showed I calmed down the agitated woman, etc. So, it
was police racism. And well some people simply do not accept this and take the law into their
own hands and we end up with 50 or more innocent people being killed.
p6 19-3-2019 © 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
Just consider if Senator Fraser Anning had been a religious person such as a Jew or Muslim then
there would have been an outcry about this being a racist attack upon a politician, but as with the
WHITE BOY incident the Victorian Police will do nothing about it. I understand that this
attacker doesn’t want to press charges. Moment he was the aggressor not the victim. Will next
time someone physically attack a Member of Parliament be deemed the same ignorance of the
violence perpetrated against this Member of Parliament or will if it involves a Member of
Parliament of a certain religion then it will be political propaganda to claim racism. In my view
both Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten are a disgrace to be Members of Parliament and neither in
my view are fit to be Prime Minister. Perhaps in years to come this aggressor may not use an egg
but some dynamite against one or more politicians and then like the Christchurch NZ Attacker
we will likely end up with numerous deaths. There likely are many people who like myself
consider John Howard and his cronies to be a mass murderer to invade Iraq but surely this
doesn’t mean we then take the law into our own hands and physically harm a Member of
Parliament. No matter how much I expose the rot within the administration of justice I still hold
that we need to work with the system we have and try to improve it. We cannot accept let alone
condone violence against any person and neither against a Member of Parliament. I have not read
anything that the attacker in NZ may have written nor watched any video as I do not desire to
promote this kind of conduct and I am pleased that Prime Minister Adhern now also refuses to
mention the name of the attacker, as I have sought to do for some years now in regard of the
Bourke Street murder as not to give him any further notoriety. I understand that there are
websites which still provide the computer details of the video of the attack but you then have to
download a program to be able to see it. I have no need to watch something like that but do
realise that with terrorist videos being on the internet then you either ban them all or none.
*.Do you hold that the Federal Government has the power to stop internet companies to ban
terrorist videos?
**#** I have no doubt that the Federal government does have the powers and the Dow Jones &
Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 case ought to be a clear example that the courts
likewise can issue court orders against foreign publications to not publish material within a
particular State and/or the Commonwealth of Australia, but it is nonsense, at least in my view, to
ban local media but not those other publishers which can publish in the State or the
Commonwealth.
*. What about the secrecy surrounding Nicola Gobbo and the suppression orders associated with
that?
**#** In my view the court should never have suppressed details, this as what now eventuated
was that she was the one undermining the administration of justice and being one of their own
being protected while her victims could so to say rot in prison for years to come. That to me is
undermining the administration of justice. She was the perpetrator and I view the courts made
gross error of judgment to protect her.
*.But what about her children?

**#** Did she care about that herself you need to ask? If she reportedly was sleeping around
with clients and police then what about the rights of any of the fathers of her children? She
portrayed what our democracy stands for and I do not accept that her children could or should be
used to cover up her wrongdoing. As a lawyer she and others like her should be well aware of the
legal consequences and if she nevertheless ignored that then let the children to be placed by law
abiding citizens and she spends her time in prison for her evil deeds.
*.You do not take the position that any tactic to bring down a criminal might be justified?
p7 19-3-2019 © 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
**#** A person can only be deemed guilty if the trial is FAIR and PROPER and not that the
accused is betrayed by his own lawyer in violation of being an Officer of the Court. As such any
wrong conviction that is any conviction tainted by the conduct of an Officer of the Court should
be set aside. We must never accept a STAR CHAMBER COURT style of hearings as I view
now eventuated. I am not the least surprised that some 50 people were killed in NZ, and I expect
we may in time end up with hundreds if not thousands to be killed in such kind of attack in the
future. That is why it is so unhealthy for a Prime Minister to pursue the victim in particular a
Member of Parliament as this may now open the floodgates to target Members of Parliament
whenever you disagree with their point of views.
I take it very serious that such kind of attack upon Senator Fraser Anning was committed and no
one seems to bother about having this attacker charged. He could for the same have ended up
killing the Senator. And while those who oppose his views might like this, reality is that most if
not all politicians have views expressed which many may not agree with. Are we now setting the
trend that physically attacking a Member of Parliament is all right if you oppose the views
expressed by a Member of Parliament? I didn’t read what the Senator had stated as to me that is
totally irrelevant as if we excuse violence merely upon if you do not agree with what a Member
of Parliament states then every parliamentarians from now on can be physically attacked by
whomever disagree with this parliamentarian. If a parliamentarian states something you may
disagree with then use peaceful ways to bring across your own views but do not resort to
violence.
If you are aware a child steals an apple and you excuse this then the child likely will grow up to
steal more and more. So, the same with if you allow someone to make a physical attack upon
anyone and excuse it then more than likely the person may become a serious criminal over time.
*. What about this being a 69 year old person who was attacked.
**#** that too is a concern because if Senator Fraser Anning had fallen down and ended up
being killed then the attacker could have faced the one punch kind of charges. So we now have a
young bloke hitting a senior citizen in the head and we have a Prime minister who seems to have
no concern about this violent display other for the Senator having reacted. We have enough
violence being perpetrated against senior citizens and the last thing we need is a Prime Minister
to implied or otherwise approve of this!
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 19-3-2019 © 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