WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk Ukraine Address 5 Hnushevskoho str., Kyiv, 01021 Phone: (044) 293 23 15 Email: ppostmaster@rada.kiev.ua URL: http://www.rada.gov.ua/ 20-3-2014

10

15

20

25

Cc: Ukraine acting President Oleksander Turchinov The First Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine - Vitaliy Yarema Vice Prime Minister, Minister of Regional Development, Construction, Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine - Volodymyr Hroisman Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine - Oleksandr Sych, Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine - Arsen Avakov Minister of Youth and Sports of Ukraine - Dmytro Bulatov Minister of Infrastructure of Ukraine - Maksym Burbak Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine - Lyudmyla Denysova Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine - Serhiy Kvit Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine - Andriy Mokhnyk Minister of Health of Ukraine - Oleh Musiy Minister of Culture of Ukraine - Yevhen Nyschuk Minister of Justice of Ukraine - Pavlo Petrenko Minister of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine - Yuriy Prodan Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine - Yevhen Semerak Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine - Ihor Shvaika Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine - Pavlo Sheremeta Minister of Finance of Ukraine - Oleksandr Shlapak Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksyonov Mr V. Putin, President, 23, Ilyinka Street, Moscow, 103132, Russia. Mr Tony Abbott Prime Minister Commonwealth of Australia Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

30

35

Re: 20140320-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk & others cc President V Putin

Sir, 40 firstly, I wish to provide my condolence to the Ukraine soldiers family and the Ukraine government in regard of the reported death of a Ukraine soldier in Crimea.
http://www.news.com.au/world/ukraine-authorises-soldiers-to-fight-back-after-troops-storm-bases-in-crimea-twodead-in-fighting/story-fndir2ev-1226858598948 QUOTE He confirmed for the first time the 25,000 unmarked troops on the Black Sea peninsula for the past two weeks were Russian and were there for stability. END QUOTE http://www.news.com.au/world/ukraine-authorises-soldiers-to-fight-back-after-troops-storm-bases-in-crimea-twodead-in-fighting/story-fndir2ev-1226858598948 QUOTE He said Crimeas transfer to Ukraine 60 years ago was an improbable formality as was the breaking up of the Soviet Union in 1991. But he said it remained an integral part of Russia, past and present, and he revealed its return was first looked at by the Kremlin back in 2000, with the aid of the then Moscow-backed government of Kiev. p1 20-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

He accused the west of overreaching their limit in s upport of the Kiev authorities and had lost political sense, including with their aggressive sanctions, forcing the hand of Russia. END QUOTE

5 From the above quotations it seems to be clear that on the one hand Mr Putin claimed to pursue stability while on the other hand he makes clear that since 2000 he already considered Crimea to become part of Russia. Considering the violence that erupted since Russian troops entered Crimea and the bashings of Crimea residents by Russian aligned residents without Russian troops intervening to protect the 10 victim, not Russian troops protecting the Ukraine armed forces stationed in Crime and in fact blocking the Ukraine navy from being able to leave port, then it appears to me that it had nothing to do with providing stability but more to the conduct of an aggressor.
.

http://www.news.com.au/world/ukraine-authorises-soldiers-to-fight-back-after-troops-storm-bases-in-crimea-two-

15 dead-in-fighting/story-fndir2ev-1226858598948
QUOTE Our western partners headed by the United States prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun, he told the televised event. They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destinies of the world, that it is only them who can be right. Mr Putins address came as Ukraine positioned 40,000 reservists on the eastern border of their country amid fears Russia would now seek to carve up the rest of the country under the same premise. For the past two days trains have been transporting aged Soviet-era tanks and armoured personnel carriers to support the troops. The Ukrainian mobilisation came with revelations Russia had moved at least 8000 troops and tanks, heavy artillery and rocket launchers west from central Russia and Siberia. END QUOTE

20

25

If indeed Mr Putins argument was to be deemed rightful as to international law and 30 considering his referral to 2000 then I view Mr Putin ought to have been well aware that he could have placed the matter before the International Court of Justice in The Hague to have his claim tested. In view that for about 13 years, at least to my understanding, he made no such attempts to seek the International Court of Justice in The Hague to deal with this matter then I view he hardly can justify his conduct to be within international law. 35 While in error I had referred to Mr Putin as Puttin which I apologize for as it was unintended, nevertheless the correspondence forwarded to Mr Putin did raise the issue of the Ukraine constitution: 40
QUOTE 18-3-2014 EMAIL AND CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr V. Puttin, President 23, Ilyinka Street, Moscow, 103132, Russia. Re: 20140318-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr V Puttin Sir, Mr V Puttin, President,

18-3-2014

45

50

I as was unable to forward the entire email in one email I will have to forward it as allowed by the system. Part 1 while my wife (born in Czechoslovakia) has been a linguistic for more than 50 years, holding a university degree in this I however born in The Netherlands am resorting to English to communicate. I am a self educated CONSTITUTIONALIST and hold that this is the pillar of any country. My blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati sets out numerous constitutional issues relating to the commonwealth of Australia. When then I am aware about a referendum being held in regard of Crimea my first issue was to download the constitution of Crimea to which I obtained the following: http://legislationline.org/documents/section/constitutions/country/52 p2 20-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

55

10

15

20

QUOTE CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE As amended by the Law of Ukraine of 8 December 2004 2222-IV The Law of Ukraine of 8 December 2222 -IV was adjudged as being not in conformity with the Constitution (being unconstitutional) in relation to the infringement of the constitutional procedure for its consideration and adoption and shall be revoked from the date of adoption of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 30 September 2010 20-/2010 END QUOTE And http://legislationline.org/documents/section/constitutions/country/52 QUOTE Article 72. The All-Ukrainian referendum shall be called by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or by the President of Ukraine in accordance with their powers determined by this Constitution. The All-Ukrainian referendum shall be convened as a popular initiative at the request of at least three million citizens of Ukraine eligible to vote, provided that the signatures in favour of the referendum have been collected in at least two-thirds of the oblasts with at least 100,000 signatures gathered in each oblast. Article 73. Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum. END QUOTE See part 2

25
Part 2 I trust you will recognise and honour the constitution of another nation as much as you would expect others to respect the constitution and its application of Russia. END QUOTE 18-3-2014 EMAIL AND CORRESPONDENCE

30 Both correspondence can be downloaded from:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/213041524/20140318-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-President-V-Puttin http://www.scribd.com/doc/213102411/20140319-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-President-V-Puttin

35 As a self-educated constitutionalist I deal with matters upon the understanding how for example the framers of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) considered matters. While the Ukraine constitution has different framers, nevertheless the same may be reasonably be deemed applicable: 40 HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the application of the Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.

45

Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to moveThat the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted. Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are not likely ever to be invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked. Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this clause.

50

Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is an attack. Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion follows. p3 20-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion" covers the ground, well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion" cover "attack"? Originally, the amendment I intended to move used both the words "attack" and "invasion." Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.

Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended? [start page 692] Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country was approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love. Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to invade, but to attack. Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the purpose of attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian fleet at anchor? Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is only bound to protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its duty, and South Australia was invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it should have an equal claim against the Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However, if the leader of the Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are booming there will be no discussion about the meaning of the two words. Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming? I thought the object was to prevent the guns booming at all. Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my honorable friend (Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and "military." Now, an attack would be naval, while an invasion would be military. The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment? Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am content. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30 In my view the Russian Federation by deploying troops in Crimea was an act of aggression and an act of war that I view cannot and must not be tolerated. And I view the international community cannot allow this to remain as such and the matter should be heard and determined by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. While the Russian Federation had it so called Black Sea Fleet in Crimea stationed it is another 35 matter for it to deploy Russian troops in what appears to me to have been an act of aggression and violation of international law to cause Crime Russian sympathizers to take over an Ukraine base, threaten Ukraine armed forces, etc. and considering that it openly allowed the bashing of Crimea residents who were deemed to be supportive of a united Ukraine then I view this was nothing less than a State sponsored act of terrorism upon another independent country. 40 . Another major issue I view is that besides the fact that the constitution of Ukraine , at least to my understanding, doesnt allow a referendum other then as is provided in its constitution, the purported referendum in my view was one of intimidation and one which denied Crimea citizens
p4 20-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

to vote to keep Ukraine united. Therefore there was in that regard no choice other than to what may suit the Russian Federation.
.

I will now refer to a decision of the High Court of Australia as to the issue of votes. 5 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/5.html
Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston [2014] HCA 5 (18 February 2014)

10

15

20

25

In this case the High Court of Australia determined that a vote includes any recounting of votes. In my view, the secrecy of a vote must therefore be held to apply until any recount is completed. It means that the identity of a voter and how a particular voter cast his/her vote is to remain secret. The vote counting itself doesnt interfere with this secrecy because the ballot paper itself doesnt identify which voter made any particular vote. As I understood it the ballot boxes used in the purported Crimea referendum failed to provide this secrecy as one could, watching the news report, see how a particular voter had voted when inserting the ballot paper into the see through ballot box. As people were left to cast their vote in a closed compartment (using a kind of a curtain) then clearly the intent was that it was a so called secret ballot where no one was ordinary permitted to know how a particular voter cast his/her vote. As such, I view that the see through ballot boxes allowing anyone to see how a voter cast his/her vote was a gross denial of this secrecy to how the elector cast his/her vote and open to intimidation that a voter may be aware that if his/her vote was seen by others it could have reaffirmations for this person later. In my view this alone already would to have held the purported referendum to have been invalid. This is also underlined by the fact that prior to the purported referendum it was reported that citizens of Crimea voicing their desire to remain part of the Ukraine were as I would refer to them subject to tugs bashing them for this. As such, the violence and intimidation prevented any fair and proper referendum for this also to have been held.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/putin-signs-treaty-to-make-crimea-part-of-russia-20140319hvk7j.html#ixzz2wR15vSFR QUOTE Setting out Moscow's view of the events that led to the overthrow of Yanukovych in a popular uprising last month, Putin said the "so-called authorities" in Kiev had stolen power in a coup, opening the way for extremists who would stop at nothing. Making clear Russia's concern at the possibility of the US-led NATO military alliance expanding into Ukraine, he declared: "I do not want to be welcomed in Sevastopol (Crimean home of Russia's Black Sea fleet) by NATO sailors." END QUOTE

30

35

What this displays to me is that Mr Putin somehow dictates what another country can do or cannot do within its own territory merely because the Russian Federation has a base in that 40 country. Clearly this is not an issue of Mr Putin seeking to rely upon international law nor as to stability but his own desire/demands.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/putin-signs-treaty-to-make-crimea-part-of-russia-20140319hvk7j.html#ixzz2wR1O06Wa QUOTE Before Putin's speech, Ukraine's interim prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, had sought to reassure Moscow on two key areas of concern, saying in a televised address delivered in Russian that Kiev was not seeking to join NATO and would disarm Ukrainian nationalist militias. END QUOTE

45

50 This also gives me the understanding that Mr Putin was dictating the terms upon another independent country what it could or couldnt do and as such nothing to do with stability or with international law.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/putin-signs-treaty-to-make-crimea-part-of-russia-20140319-

55 hvk7j.html#ixzz2wR1y9HU9
QUOTE p5 20-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Putin has declared that Russia has the right to defend, by military force if necessary, Russian citizens and Russian speakers living in former Soviet republics, raising concerns that Moscow may intervene elsewhere. END QUOTE

On this note it appears to me that Mr Putin makes it clear that not just in relation to Ukraine but to any former part of the former Soviet Union he can deploy military as he desires regardless of international law. As such, he doesnt accept their sovereign positions. Yet, where then Russian speaking Crimea residents are bashed by what I call tugs, then the Russian troops deployed in 10 Crimea doesnt protect such a victim. As such, it seems to me it was not an issue to protect Russian speaking persons but only those aligned to his political views irrespective what international law may stand for. Also, what he makes clear is that if he deems that a Russian citizen is harmed while in any former Soviet union entity then he takes upon himself the right to invade that independent country. In my view this shows the deplorable conduct of a dictator and 15 terrorist who no matter what the rights are of other sovereign countries he will in the end decide what they may or may not be permitted to do.
.

20

25

30

http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2014/03/what_annexing_crimea_will_cost_russias_government QUOTE "NO BETTER THAN PALESTINE" But as the Russian dream of acquiring Crimea becomes a reality, Moscow is trying to calculate the price tag of bringing in a region that in the words of Russian Regional Development Minister Igor Slyunyayev has an economy that "looks no better than Palestine." As part of Ukraine, about 40 percent of Crimea's annual budget of roughly $500 million was propped up by subsidies from Kiev. Russia would be expected to at least match and probably far exceed the Ukrainian annual contribution to raise living standards in its new territory. Living standards in Crimea are drastically different from Russia. The GDP per capita in Russia, home to more than a hundred of billionaires, is about $14,000. In Crimea, it's about $5,000. Demographics are one major hurdle. More than 500,000 people about a quarter of the population are pensioners. Pensions in Russia are about double what they are in Ukraine, and former Russian tax minister Alexander Pochinok estimated that paying pensions in Crimea alone would cost 70 billion rubles ($1.9 billion) per year. END QUOTE

35 What this indicates to me that Republic of Crimea was within the Ukraine constitution an autonomous republic it somehow failed to manage its own internal affairs. Yet, I am not aware Mr Putin to have criticised the Crimea government in the past for its failure to appropriately look after the Crimea Russian speaking citizens and Russian nationals. Somehow the rhetoric that now is contributed to Mr Putin didnt show he really was that much interested in the rights and 40 wellbeing of those people, he now held justified an invasion of his 25,000 odd troops.
.

http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2014/03/what_annexing_crimea_will_cost_russias_government QUOTE

45

50

Mr Putin, armed with annexation approval from the Russian Constitutional Court, historically addressed both Houses of the Russian parliament. He said the move was legal and simply addressed a 20-year-old anomaly. In what is considered the most significant redraw of Europe since the Second World War, Mr Putin said he had history and international law on his side. He confirmed for the first time the 25,000 unmarked troops on the Black Sea peninsula for the past two weeks were Russian and were there for stability. He said the annexation of Crimea would not lead to the break up of Ukraine as Russia did not want the rest of that country. END QUOTE

And 55 http://www.news.com.au/world/ukraine-authorises-soldiers-to-fight-back-after-troops-storm-bases-in-crimea-twodead-in-fighting/story-fndir2ev-1226858598948 QUOTE "They are demanding to change the constitution, to change the system, to give up Crimea. This is the language of an aggressor ... this is the language of Josef Stalin, said Oleksiy Haran, a politics professor at p6 20-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

the University of Kiev-Mohyla Academy. "Ukraine has done everything which it can. We resisted from violence, which again the West demanded from us. We didnt kill any Russian soldiers. END QUOTE

5 In my view arrest warrants should be issued against those who perpetrated this evil against Ukraine and as result one or more Ukraine soldiers were killed. In my view Mr Putin cannot be held blameless where even with about 25,000 Russian troops he cannot provide the security for Ukraine soldiers who are after all within their own country and as such no so claimed stability was provided. Not that I seek to concede this was a right for the 10 Russian federation to pursue. In my view Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksyonov must also be held legally responsible for this act of terrorism and unconstitutional conduct as I understand from media reports he signed a treaty with the Russian Federation where he knew or ought to have know that he had no such constitutional powers within the Ukraine constitution. We cannot have politicians elected upon 15 the basis of the Ukraine constitution and then deliberately act contrary to it. In my view he should also be held legally liable for instigating this problem and deemed to have contributed by this to the death/injuries of soldiers. 20 Every nation has a right to be concerned about the safety and wellbeing of its citizens but it always must be cautious who to act in a dignified manner as to ensure it doesnt injure another nations sovereign rights. For example there are countries which regretfully, in my view, still apply the death penalty or other horrific conduct as punishment, and while we may utterly deplore this kind of conduct we cannot interfere with their legal processes, even so casting how we may deplore the conduct to harm another human being. We cannot and never must permit aggression to be the rule of law. The Russian Federation has in the past and likely will; continue to have ample of strife with those who desire to be separate from the Russian Federation and then the Russian Federation will expect that other countries stays out of its internal affairs. Well, likewise then the Russian Federation ought to have done so in regard of Ukraine internal affairs. The fact that Crimea was once part of the Soviet Union doesnt mean those right to govern are maintained after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ukraine had its assurances by the Russian Federation, as I understand it, that it guaranteed its independence, etc, if it handed over nuclear arsenal, etc, and I view no matter what Mr Putin may argue now, he is bound by this and cannot go behind what may have been the position during the Soviet union era. I for one view that the purported annexation by the Russian Federation has no validity at all, as it violates the Ukraine constitution. In my view the Russian Federation should unconditionally stop any purported annexation of Crimea and act to immediately restore the rightful entitlements of the Ukraine Government over Crimea and if it holds it has certain international rights then pursue those as so to say a model citizen before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Rather than to so to say take the law into its own hands. I urge that this correspondence is provided to all referred to in the heading of this correspondence. 45 This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all matters/details and is based upon the information known to me and may not be the same if other information were to become available. Awaiting your response, 50 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

25

30

35

40

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

p7 20-3-2014 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati