Page 1

1
2
3 Ashley, Francina, Leonard & Associates 13-10-2023
4 Mr Tony Nikolic
5 admin@aflsolicitors.com.au
6
7 Ref; 20231013-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Nikolic - Ashley, Francina, Leonard & Associates
8 .
9 Sir,
10 the following might be very interesting to you if you read this correspondence in full.
11 There are many legal practitioners who claim to be “constitutional lawyer” which is like
12 claiming to be a “Firefighter Arsonist”. This, because a constitutionalist will base laws upon
13 what the legal principles embedded in the constitution stands for whereas a lawyer will pursue
14 constitutional meaning pending what is legislated. Clear examples are the High Court of
15 Australia judgments in Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, MABO, Palmer v WA, KOOWARTA V.
16 BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168, Kirby J in Sue v Hill even commented that
17 Dawson J in Sykes v Cleary was wrong. Just that Kirby J still did not seem to grasp how wrong
18 it was. This as Section 44 of the constitution didn’t apply to Mr Phil Cleary. I will not set it all
19 out in this letter because I did so extensively in my writings at
20 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
21
22 You may wonder if I can prove ever at all to have been in any successful court case proving any
23 constitutional claim I made. Well, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I was charged with FAILING TO
24 VOTE in the 2001 federal election. I (representing myself) upon this filed a NOTICE OF
25 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and served this upon all 9 Attorney-Generals. The court on 4
26 December 2002 ordered that this was to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.
27 Now about 21 years later the High Court of Australia has not heard the matter, and actually
28 never can do so, because of implied bias. However the AEC charged me again for FAILING TO
29 VOTE in the 2004 federal election. On 4 August 2005 the Prosecutor pursued AVERMENT
30 which I successfully objected against and also relied upon the Kable NSW case. The Court
31 ordered the prosecution to file all and any evidence it relied upon. The prosecutor also filed an
32 exhibit 8 October 2001, to which I objected but was overruled. And then I pointed out to the
33 court that the FOI evidence I had presented to the Court proved that the 8 October 2001 Gazette
34 was not published until 9 October 2001. Upon this the Prosecutor withdrew the 8 October 2001
35 Gazette albeit could not deny me to use this. I had in fact already placed before the Court exactly
36 the same copy of the 9 October 2001 Gazette and so no longer needed to prove being authentic!
37 On 16 & 17 the proceedings were before the court but the Court ruled it was going to ignore
38 previous orders and I was convicted. I appealed both convictions and filed a 409 pages written
39 submissions “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” challenging on constitutional ground that the
40 “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional and also for example that there is
41 constitutionally no such thing as a “nationality” called “Australian citizenship”, etc. I succeeded
42 in both appeals unchallenged by the Commonwealth and/or any of the 9 Attorney-Generals. As
43 such those matters are now subject to Res judicata. Moreover, once I filed my objection to
44 legislative provisions then they became ULTRA VIRES ab initio and would remain to be so
13-10-2023 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 unless and until if ever at all a court of competent jurisdiction were to declare it to be INTRA
2 VIRUS. This has not happened since.
3
4 COVID
5
6 This was a planned covid scam that never had the SARS-CoV-2 alleged virus ever proven to
7 exist by the Koch postulate!
8
9 https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/cia-front-organization-revisiting-ecohealth-claims-
10 after-fauci-influence-campaign
11 "A CIA Front Organization": Revisiting EcoHealth COVID-19 Claims After
12 Fauci 'Influence' Campaign Bombshell
13
14 https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/cia-front-organization-revisiting-ecohealth-claims-after-
15 fauci-influence-campaign
16 "A CIA Front Organization": Revisiting EcoHealth COVID -19 Claims After Fauci
17 'Influence' Campaign Bombshell
18
19 The alleged SARS-COV-2 virus was already subject to patent in about 2016, etc.
20
21 As a matter of fact in 2017 Covid-19 PCR test were being sold around the world.
22
23 It was an elaborate scam already indicated in LockStep 2010 (Rockefeller).
24
25 Olga (my wife) who is turning 91 in November, fell serious ill in October 2019 that I rushed her
26 to hospital and the doctor gave me the understanding Olga would have died within hours had I
27 not presented her as she had heart failure, liquid on her lungs and other comorbidities. It was
28 then that I had no choice but to consider medical issues. When then the covid scam came around
29 I commenced to investigate this and in January noticed how in one video a female scientist
30 claimed to have had the vaccine in 2 hours, whereas in another video she claimed it was 3 hours.
31 Peter Doherty Institute claimed to have detected 8 different sequences, including the first
32 Melbourne one in January 2020, albeit due to FOI it later turned out they never actually did! But,
33 in the meantime they were for years advisers to the governments.
34
35 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
36 Convention)
37 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
38 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
39 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
50 END QUOTE
51
52 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
53 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
13-10-2023 Page 2 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
2 understand.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Obviously purported legislation/mandates that fails to comply with the provisions of the legal
6 principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) cannot be
7 deemed legally enforceable and are NUL AND VOID.
8
9 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
11 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
12 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
13 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 The Commonwealth in 1908 legislated for the quarantine Act which was later substituted by the
17 Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).
18
19 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
22 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
28 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
29 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
30 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
31 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
32 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
36 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
37 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
38 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
39 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
40 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Meaning that the “concurrent” legislative powers was no more since 1908 regarding “man-
44 kind” infectious diseases. This means that all and any State/Territory mandates were
45 unconstitutional as the states/territories had no longer any legislative, executive and/or
46 administrative powers regarding any “man-kind” infectious disease.
47 This not only related to the alleged covid-19 but also to other infectious diseases such as
48 measles, polio, etc. Meaning that those kind of childhood vaccinations are unconstitutional!
49
50 On 8 April 2020 I lodged a complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman who referred the matter to
51 IBAC which responded on 19 April 2020 that it was not deemed a matter of “public interest”.
52 Well, tell that to the people who since were harmed and those who died. OK, those who died will
53 not hear it.
54
13-10-2023 Page 3 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

1 On 13 April 2020 I also filed a more comprehensive complaint with the Victorian Human Rights
2 Commissioner who couldn’t bother to respond at all.
3
4 In August 2020 I requested then Premier Daniel Andrews to provide information which he
5 blatantly ignored to respond to.
6
7 I also requested then PM Scott Morrison for information, to which he also couldn’t bother to
8 respond.
9
10 Still, for me that is how I used to build up a case for litigation!
11
12 I ongoing provided then Premier Daniel Andrews and PM Scott Morrison with copies of my 6
13 August 2021 complaint to the Australian Federal Police. Well the Chief Commissioner neither
14 could bother to respond, albeit by now it is with numerous supplement about 7,000 pages. Such
15 as exposing the deception by the Department of Health, the TGA, etc. The violation of the
16 Biosecurity Act 2015 and other issues.
17
18 https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-anti-vaxxers-targeted-special-team-detectives-fears-could-target-
19 vaccine-hubs/fad28908-9340-4d0e-80f7-f5e21d61f0e7
20 Coronavirus: Anti vaxxers targeted by special team of detectives amid fears they could
21 target vaccine hubs (9news.com.au)
22 Fears vaccine hubs could be 'targeted' as online chatter spikes
23 QUOTE
24 A special team of AFP detectives has been appointed by the Federal Government to
25 watch the online interactions of the anti-vaccination "movement".
26 END QUOTE
27
28 As a self-educated constitutionalist (and now retired Professional Advocate) I realised that my
29 knowledge regarding constitutional issues is very important.
30
31 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
33 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
34 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
35 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
36 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
37 embrace and unite.
38 END QUOTE
39 And
40 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
43 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
44 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
45 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
46 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
47 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
48 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 By making it an official COMPLAINT to the Australian Federal Police it is a matter of police
52 records regardless if the Australian Federal Police fails to act upon it. As result none of my
53 writings were until very recently removed or shadow banned.
13-10-2023 Page 4 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 5

1 However with the Voice issue in recent months I discovered that Scribd.com is shadow banning
2 me, which I hold violates my constitutional rights as to “political liberty” and filed my
3 complaint in regard of this. ACMA actually has no legal powers to interfere with any person’s
4 constitutional rights of “political liberty” regardless what legislation may purport otherwise.
5
6 You find in Palmer v WA that the High Court of Australia actually quoted the Framers of the
7 Constitution out of context and concealed the reference to “man-kind” diseases as I quoted
8 above.
9
10 The High Court of Australia started this rot way back in 1904, when it unconstitutionally
11 prohibited the usage of the Hansard records.
12
13 Again:
14 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
15 Convention)
16 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
17 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
18 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 This is also why citizens are swindled with State land taxation which is unconstitutional since the
22 Commonwealth on 11 November 1910 commenced the Commonwealth Land Taxation Act.
23 While much is claimed that the Commonwealth abolished Commonwealth land taxation in 1953
24 and so the States had the legislative powers returned to them, reality is that there is no
25 constitutional system existing to return exclusive legislative powers to the States.
26 The argument that once a legislation is abolished then is as if it never existed cannot apply
27 because within a jurisdiction it can apply but not once there has been an exclusive jurisdiction
28 imposed. More over while for example NSW acknowledge that it had no land taxation powers at
29 least until 1953 (so it claimed) nevertheless they had all along been claiming State land taxation!
30 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear any unlawful taxation has to be returned to the
31 taxpayer. In 1904 in Sydney Council v Commonwealth the High Court of Australia held that
32 “rate” were a form of State land taxation. Just that in 1910 no one seemed to realize those state
33 land taxation no longer were valid once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate. Consider
34 the issue of income taxation where once the Commonwealth legislate then the states had to retire
35 from this.
36
37 I used to appear before judges where at times they would claim I was wrong about a certain
38 Authority, when I quoted of head the law report part, only for them when checking the law report
39 discovering that in fact I was correct. Guess J even making clear that he was the senior counsel
40 in the Prowse v Prowse case and what I quoted of head simply was not part of the case, albeit
41 when checking the law report, his response was that I knew the case better than he did, when he
42 discovered that indeed it was part of the case.
43
44 I once appeared before Smithers J and submitted for His Honour to disqualify himself for being
45 bias, upon which His Honour read out numerous Authorities and then dismissed my submission,
46 upon which I then submitted His Honour to disqualify himself for failing to disqualify himself
47 for being bias. His Honour again read out numerous Authorities and then stated that His Honour
48 did not consider that he was bias but that a FAIR MINDED PERSON may view he was, and
49 disqualified himself from the case.
50
51 In the van Rooy case I submitted (about 2 years before the case went to trial) to the Prosecutor
52 that there was no case to answer, upon which the Prosecutor withdrew 2 of the 3 charges. The
13-10-2023 Page 5 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 6

1 prosecutor had 5 police officers a clerk of court and a deputy clerk of court as witnesses. I had all
2 long made known to van Rooy that there was no need for me to appeal at court. The trial judge
3 actually asked van Rooy why I was not appearing. Anyhow, when the Prosecutor completed his
4 case His Honour dismissed the case as there was no case to answer. While ordinary one submit
5 for “No Case to Answer” at conclusion of the Prosecutors case, I held it better to do it well in
6 advance and so avoid having to prepare for the 2 charges already withdrawn. It might be argued
7 one should not alert an opposing party but to me I prefer using my style.
8
9 When Mr Colosimo requested me to represent him in an appeal against orders of Administration
10 and also in regard of another case of CONTEMPT OF COURT I did so successfully. First I
11 objected to an instructing solicitor and Counsel to be in the court room, not having any legal
12 standing, and despite their objections were ordered to leave. In the CONTEMPT OF COURT
13 case I opposed the opposing party to withdraw the CONTEMPT OF COURT application, upon
14 the basis that once it was filed it became the property of the court. Her Honour Harbison ruled
15 that indeed it became the property of the court, and the party that filed it couldn’t withdraw it. I
16 then submitted for a permanent stay of the CONTEMPT OF COURT application that only Mr
17 Colosimo could bring it back to the court for a hearing and after various submissions Her
18 Honour Harbison J issued this order.
19
20 Some years ago an opponent counsel submitted to a full court that I probably knew legal matters
21 better than any lawyer who ever appeared before the court and so the judge didn’t have to follow
22 certain procedures. The Full Court however upheld my appeal. Reality is that one needs to know
23 what is relevant to the case as otherwise extensive knowledge unrelated and not knowing was is
24 relevant can be fatal.
25 In another case an opponent counsel submitted that I was surgically taking apart his witness
26 Affidavit. My response: Sit down I am doing my job!
27
28 As I challenged the validly of “Australian Citizenship” being a “nationality” and was never
29 challenged on this, then considering that by law to vote, being an elector, being a legal
30 practitioner to be admitted to the Bar, being a judge, being a police officer one needs to have
31 “Australian Citizenship” as a “nationality”, then none are validly in such position!
32
33 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
36 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
37 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
38 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
39 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
40 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
41 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
42 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
43 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
44 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
45 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
46 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
47 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
48 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 Hence the High Court of Australia has no constitutional powers to interfere with the true
52 meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
13-10-2023 Page 6 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 7

1 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
3 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
4 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
5 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
6 invest with federal jurisdiction.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 If just the High Court of Australia in 1904 had not interfered with the usage of the Hansard
10 records many judgments may never have been handed down in violation of the constitution,
11 however, we now have this rot and it needs to be reconsidered rather than being persisted with,
12 as it was and remains to be in violation of the constitution.
13
14 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
17 subjects of the British Crown.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Meaning, that the High Court of Australia being “part of the constitution” is not above it and
21 cannot therefore interfere with the constitutional rights of Australians to be a “Subject of the
22 British Crown”.
23
24 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that native-born and naturalised citizens were all
25 equal. As such, the 1967 s51(xxvi) con job referendum was utter and sheer nonsense.
26
27 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
28 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the
29 Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
30 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony,
31 and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the
32 rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
33 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the
34 aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
35 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
36 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought
37 not to be deducted.
38 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
39 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in
40 reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals
41 vote.
42 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
43 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this
44 matter is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita,
45 if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst
46 if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
47 Clause, as read, agreed to.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 It is utter and sheer nonsense for anyone to claim that women were denied equality by the
51 constitution as s41 refers to “adult” irrespective if it is a male or female. Aboriginals who had
52 franchise of a State were within s41 entitled to vote in federal elections as some Aboriginals
53 actually did in 1901!

13-10-2023 Page 7 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 8

1 As for Aboriginals to have and retain their “sovereign rights” this also is a gross misconception.
2 Because of federation all Australians were deemed to be “sovereigns” as well as “Subjects of the
3 British Crown”. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the “sovereign” rights remained
4 with the People. In fact the Colonies used to have “Sovereign Parliaments” which than could
5 amend their own constitution but upon federation the now created States in s106 “subject to this
6 constitution” were now being “constitutional Parliaments” and no longer could amend their own
7 constitutions! The Victorian (colonial) Constitution Act 1855 automatically upon federation
8 became the Victorian (State) constitution Act 1855 [as amended by the Commonwealth of
9 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)] and the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is not
10 constitution at all as it was not approved by a State referendum.
11
12 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE
14 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
15 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
16 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
17 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
18 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
19 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
20 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
21 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
22 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
23 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
24 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you
25 bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative
26 and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
27 END QUOTE
28 .
29 So much more I could state but for now you may get the drift.
30 Last but not least I checked out your Facebook page and was pleasantly surprised with what you
31 presented. I provided some comments on it.
32

33
34
35 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
36 constitution!
37
38 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
39 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

41 (Our name is our motto!)
13-10-2023 Page 8 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati